Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

People adjusting numbers to keep the heat on is now reaching the MSM.

We can chill for a while

[steveT350C]

Bit of help TB, or anyone, please.....Is this correct?

“The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere now exceeds anything it has experienced in the past 3 million years and its continuing upward trend is almost certain to result in further global warming."

From this blogger who tweeted me an overload of links proving his POV

http://rockyrexscience.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/scie...

Hope you having a nice Sunday afternoon

[mybrainhurts]

400ppm was supposed to be catastrophic, Armageddon-style. We've reached that and nothing's happening with the temperature.

[Jasandjules]

steveT350C said:

“The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere now exceeds anything it has experienced in the past 3 million years and its continuing upward trend is almost certain to result in further global warming."

Surely the first question you ask when you read that from someone is to invite them to clarify why the CO2 was higher 3m years ago.... You can then move on to what temp was it....

[jet_noise]

Dear s,

3MY. I raise you 597MY



Arguing over when CO2 has been larger or smaller than today is a moot point.
The important question is: Does CO2 cause thermogeddon?

regards,
Jet

[steveT350C]

Jasandjules said:

steveT350C said:

“The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere now exceeds anything it has experienced in the past 3 million years and its continuing upward trend is almost certain to result in further global warming."

Surely the first question you ask when you read that from someone is to invite them to clarify why the CO2 was higher 3m years ago.... You can then move on to what temp was it....

Of course! Thanks.
(Mildly annoyed that I did not work that Q out for myself; live and learn!)

[steveT350C]

jet_noise said:

Dear s,

3MY. I raise you 597MY



Arguing over when CO2 has been larger or smaller than today is a moot point.
The important question is: Does CO2 cause thermogeddon?

regards,
Jet

Nice graph which I will use thanks. With a humble BSc I remember correlation does not = causation. I Got that one safely in long term memory.

[Andy Zarse]

Back to the (Sunday) Politics, Brillo destroyed Natalie "Ban it" Bennett of the Green Party.
He didn't touch on AGW, although he did keep referring to "windmills"

Car crash telly of the highest order, I can't wait for the leader's debates in April, to watch her and Millipaed going at each other hammer and tongues (sic).

Enjoy!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...

[Diderot]

Andy Zarse said:

Back to the (Sunday) Politics, Brillo destroyed Natalie "Ban it" Bennett of the Green Party.
He didn't touch on AGW, although he did keep referring to "windmills"

Car crash telly of the highest order, I can't wait for the leader's debates in April, to watch her and Millipaed going at each other hammer and sickles.

Enjoy!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...

EFA

[Andy Zarse]

Diderot said:

Andy Zarse said:

Back to the (Sunday) Politics, Brillo destroyed Natalie "Ban it" Bennett of the Green Party.
He didn't touch on AGW, although he did keep referring to "windmills"

Car crash telly of the highest order, I can't wait for the leader's debates in April, to watch her and Millipaed going at each other hammer and sickles.

Enjoy!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...

EFA

They make me sick(le)

[steveatesh]

Jasandjules said:

Surely the first question you ask when you read that from someone is to invite them to clarify why the CO2 was higher 3m years ago.... You can then move on to what temp was it....

Could he also point out that the rise in temperature associated with CO2 is not linear but logarithmic, and that any further rises in CO2 will produce hardly any rise in temperature? Have I remembered that correctly?

[Jasandjules]

steveT350C said:

Of course! Thanks.
(Mildly annoyed that I did not work that Q out for myself; live and learn!)

A further hint when you look at that graph, note the Ordivician period - that was an Ice Age with CO2 rather higher than today (hence my saying to move onto temp after that)......

[mybrainhurts]

Andy Zarse said:

Diderot said:

Andy Zarse said:

Back to the (Sunday) Politics, Brillo destroyed Natalie "Ban it" Bennett of the Green Party.
He didn't touch on AGW, although he did keep referring to "windmills"

Car crash telly of the highest order, I can't wait for the leader's debates in April, to watch her and Millipaed going at each other hammer and sickles.

Enjoy!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&a...

EFA

They make me sick(le)

Oh dear, oh very dear...Natalie Bennett, the loony left is alive and well and talking bks like never before.

Watch for her autobiography...How To Be Out Of Your Depth, Without Really Trying.

[turbobloke]

steveatesh said:

the rise in temperature associated with CO2 is not linear but logarithmic...Have I remembered that correctly?

You're right that the effect of adding more carbon dioxide is non-linear and logarithmic, the accurate model which describes this particular effect is visible light (radiant heat) escaping from a room (the planet) through a window (the atmosphere) when increasing numbers of roller blinds (carbon dioxide levels) are pulled down over the window on top of each other...the first blind has the most impact, then when you get to 400, one more has virtually no effect. In reality there are other things going on but for your purpose, that's the picture.

It would be a step too far though to speak of a direct relationship with temperature, as the room (atmosphere) has other means (degrees of freedom) for the energy to escape. This is a key error in the junkscience. Nobody disputes radiative absorption of IR by carbon dioxide but the idea that this will automatically cause an immiment, permament and dangerous bulk temperature rise of the atmosphere is junkscience. Anyone still doubting this should take a look at carbon dioxide levels and temperature over the past 20 years, comparing model predictions with reality for additional humour. Carbon dioxide levels do not control temperature, never have (see data / chart from jet_noise) and in the current era the gradual and very modest warming - from the LIA - started around 1715, before industrial scale emissions of tax gas got going.

On the other current theme, what an excellent interview that was

[LongQ]

BBC reports that an "influential" committee of people who don't have much to do proposes a ban of fracking because it won't help meet "carbon targets".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3095...


There may be many reasons why fracking may not happen, at least for a while. The political manipulation of the price of oil and gas would be one of them. But meeting "carbon targets" really should not be a concern of Westminster part-timers (who, in my opinion, would be ideal candidates for zero hours contracts).

That said the spokesperson quoted seems to have a very pertinent moniker.

[Diderot]

Just read that. It would appear that the author - Helen Briggs - is another in a long line of activist 'journalists' ... impartial, ho ho ho.

[hidetheelephants]

LongQ said:

BBC reports that an "influential" committee of people who don't have much to do proposes a ban of fracking because it won't help meet "carbon targets".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3095...


There may be many reasons why fracking may not happen, at least for a while. The political manipulation of the price of oil and gas would be one of them. But meeting "carbon targets" really should not be a concern of Westminster part-timers (who, in my opinion, would be ideal candidates for zero hours contracts).

That said the spokesperson quoted seems to have a very pertinent moniker.

There was a green idiot and a evil horned oil&gas industry beelzebub on R4's Today; the green idiot failed to make any coherent sense or contradict any of the devil's sensible talking points. I'm baffled by the argument that the UK must not continue the 'headlong rush' to develop fracking; if this is a headlong rush I never want to see the UK develop something slowly and carefully.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 26th January 08:09

[turbobloke]

New York is expecting considerable Vinerism from winter storm Juno with Obama hyping this 'extreme' weather with dire warnings. Then again, there is a point of sorts in there as cooling is far more harmful than warming. The rub will come when the cooling is claimed to be caused by warming.

[Crush]

So how many more years of failed MMuGW theory, incorrect predictions from increasingly expensive super computers and no warming will we have to endure until someone says "hang on, we can't keep peddling this st"?

[LongQ]

Crush said:

So how many more years of failed MMuGW theory, incorrect predictions from increasingly expensive super computers and no warming will we have to endure until someone says "hang on, we can't keep peddling this st"?

Well, the more established religions have a few thousand years of history so it could be a while.