Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Special pleading nonsense. The time period/resolution of the air sample is immaterial. It's a direct observation of the amount of CO2 in an air sample and not a proxy for anything else but the amount of CO2 in a sample of air.
A sample of air in the arctic. Given a diurnal period of cica six months, a CO2 variance during a diurnal cycle, lack of vegetation and solubility of CO2 in colder water - how representative of global CO2 levels do you believe the samples will be (compared with CO2 near a volcano in the Pacific)? And that's without quoting any of Professors Salby Murray's work.Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Special pleading nonsense. The time period/resolution of the air sample is immaterial. It's a direct observation of the amount of CO2 in an air sample and not a proxy for anything else but the amount of CO2 in a sample of air.
A sample of air in the arctic. Given a diurnal period of cica six months, a CO2 variance during a diurnal cycle, lack of vegetation and solubility of CO2 in colder water - how representative of global CO2 levels do you believe the samples will be (compared with CO2 near a volcano in the Pacific)? And that's without quoting any of Professors Salby Murray's work.As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
kerplunk said:
PRTVR said:
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
and long before then the resulting political fallout from such costly and pointless greenblobbism will be felt. Macron and his mates have had a taster already.
So you keep saying but most countries, like the U.K. are making and increasing commitments that completely contradict your statement.You also keep saying the tide is turning, but it obviously isn’t. So now you’re changing it to some other nonsense.
Do you think Boris is deliberately making commitments that damage the U.K. economically and will damage him and his party politically just to appease environmentalists?
if history is a guide going forward, the jobs will be minimal, solar panels from Germany, wind turbines from Norway, Germany and Denmark.
Then we come to batteries, most of the rare earth materials come from China, basically because they don't care about pollution,
So what do we do? Well as part of NATO we decided they are now an enemy, China threatens to the militarization of the supply, that will make it interesting when everything we have is battery powered, great joined up thinking don't you think?
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
PRTVR said:
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
and long before then the resulting political fallout from such costly and pointless greenblobbism will be felt. Macron and his mates have had a taster already.
So you keep saying but most countries, like the U.K. are making and increasing commitments that completely contradict your statement.You also keep saying the tide is turning, but it obviously isn’t. So now you’re changing it to some other nonsense.
Do you think Boris is deliberately making commitments that damage the U.K. economically and will damage him and his party politically just to appease environmentalists?
if history is a guide going forward, the jobs will be minimal, solar panels from Germany, wind turbines from Norway, Germany and Denmark.
Then we come to batteries, most of the rare earth materials come from China, basically because they don't care about pollution,
So what do we do? Well as part of NATO we decided they are now an enemy, China threatens to the militarization of the supply, that will make it interesting when everything we have is battery powered, great joined up thinking don't you think?
COP25: Longest climate talks end with compromise deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
The longest United Nations climate talks on record have finally ended in Madrid with a compromise deal.
Exhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon.
All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow next year.
Divisions over other questions - including carbon markets - were delayed until the next gathering.
What was agreed?
After two extra days and nights of negotiations, delegates finally agreed a deal that will see new, improved carbon cutting plans on the table by the time of the Glasgow conference next year.
All parties will need to address the gap between what the science says is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, and the current state of play which would see the world go past this threshold in the 2030s..........continues
How much CO2 exhausted for that non-event party then? Never mind we'll have another in 6 months' time somewhere nice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
The longest United Nations climate talks on record have finally ended in Madrid with a compromise deal.
Exhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon.
All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow next year.
Divisions over other questions - including carbon markets - were delayed until the next gathering.
What was agreed?
After two extra days and nights of negotiations, delegates finally agreed a deal that will see new, improved carbon cutting plans on the table by the time of the Glasgow conference next year.
All parties will need to address the gap between what the science says is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, and the current state of play which would see the world go past this threshold in the 2030s..........continues
How much CO2 exhausted for that non-event party then? Never mind we'll have another in 6 months' time somewhere nice.
Climate change: Five things we've learned from Madrid talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Poor old McGrath is beginning to see that there's not a hope in hell in getting all the planets countries to agree to anything re CC. No surprise there then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Poor old McGrath is beginning to see that there's not a hope in hell in getting all the planets countries to agree to anything re CC. No surprise there then.
kerplunk said:
No idea what you're getting at here - diurnal cycle? no vegetation? water? Salbys work? What are you on about?
As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
Erm the Arctic ocean is a CO2 sink. The day/night cycle is 6 months and seasonal varition is extreme (Summer/Winter split). Given on a 24 hour diurnal cycle CO2 levels can easily vary by 30 ppm in a non-arctic location ( check chaper 3) and seasonal variation from spring high to summer low has double this range - why would an ice core formed with a diameter of 50 to 132 milimeters be considered anything other than a proxy?As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
No idea what you're getting at here - diurnal cycle? no vegetation? water? Salbys work? What are you on about?
As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
Erm the Arctic ocean is a CO2 sink. The day/night cycle is 6 months and seasonal varition is extreme (Summer/Winter split). Given on a 24 hour diurnal cycle CO2 levels can easily vary by 30 ppm in a non-arctic location ( check chaper 3) and seasonal variation from spring high to summer low has double this range - why would an ice core formed with a diameter of 50 to 132 milimeters be considered anything other than a proxy?As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
diurnal variation in non-arctic locations - so that would be in places where there ARE local CO2 sources/sinks. WTF? Don't think I can be arsed with you frankly.
kerplunk said:
Jeez for you're hard work. For some reason you're invoking the arctic in a discussion of antartic ice cores - no very far out there then. Then you invoke
diurnal variation in non-arctic locations - so that would be in places where there ARE local CO2 sources/sinks. WTF? Don't think I can be arsed with you frankly.
So these aren' the Greenland Ice cores then?diurnal variation in non-arctic locations - so that would be in places where there ARE local CO2 sources/sinks. WTF? Don't think I can be arsed with you frankly.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Jeez for you're hard work. For some reason you're invoking the arctic in a discussion of antartic ice cores - no very far out there then. Then you invoke
diurnal variation in non-arctic locations - so that would be in places where there ARE local CO2 sources/sinks. WTF? Don't think I can be arsed with you frankly.
So these aren' the Greenland Ice cores then?diurnal variation in non-arctic locations - so that would be in places where there ARE local CO2 sources/sinks. WTF? Don't think I can be arsed with you frankly.
kerplunk said:
No. What made you think that? The graph posted goes back 800,000 years. That is obviously (well to anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject anyway) Antarctic ice cores.
So not from https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ic... that use both Antarctic and Greenland ice cores?Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
No. What made you think that? The graph posted goes back 800,000 years. That is obviously (well to anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject anyway) Antarctic ice cores.
So not from https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ic... that use both Antarctic and Greenland ice cores?Edited by kerplunk on Monday 16th December 14:00
kerplunk said:
No idea what you're getting at here - diurnal cycle? no vegetation? water? Salbys work? What are you on about?
As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
I got bored with posting since you where clearly not listening. But for others. As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
1. Bubbles of air trapped in ice are not nice bubble marking each year. As the ice compacts the bubbles join together. Some will contain air for decades even centuries. So any sort of accurate measurement even by decade is a problem.
2. The air has been in contact with the ice at high pressure for centuries. It's highly possible there has been interaction which may change the percentages.
3. Its more than possible air bubbles as they join may move between ice layers. So in the sample they show up for completely different periods.
The fact is we have no idea how accurate the data set is.
The graph does not contain glacier data because water run off affects the measurement.
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
No idea what you're getting at here - diurnal cycle? no vegetation? water? Salbys work? What are you on about?
As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
I got bored with posting since you where clearly not listening. But for others. As I already said to MrrT if you want to make a case that the air samples in ice cores aren't representative of global levels the only way I can think of to do that would be to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. The reason that antarctic ice cores are such a fantatsic gift for observing the past is because the location isn't affected by those factors. The absence of vegetation for example is a good thing so I'm bemused why you would invoke that.
1. Bubbles of air trapped in ice are not nice bubble marking each year. As the ice compacts the bubbles join together. Some will contain air for decades even centuries. So any sort of accurate measurement even by decade is a problem.
2. The air has been in contact with the ice at high pressure for centuries. It's highly possible there has been interaction which may change the percentages.
3. Its more than possible air bubbles as they join may move between ice layers. So in the sample they show up for completely different periods.
The fact is we have no idea how accurate the data set is.
The graph does not contain glacier data because water run off affects the measurement.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 16th December 14:22
kerplunk said:
Who cares if they don't resolve to 1yr - you think global concentrations can zing up and down in a decade/century by significant amounts? No plausible mechanism for that. Where did it come from and where did it go? You lack joined-up physical understanding.
You do make me laugh. Because we know CO2 levels have hardly changed since 1950.
Edited by Mrr T on Monday 16th December 16:36
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
Who cares if they don't resolve to 1yr - you think global concentrations can zing up and down in a decade/century by significant amounts? No plausible mechanism for that. Where did it come from and where did it go? You lack joined-up physical understanding.
You do make me laugh. Because we know CO2 levels have hardly changed since 1950.Edited by Mrr T on Monday 16th December 16:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff