Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Oh, look...those climate models doing the impossible now
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/anti-informa...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/anti-informa...
http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/15/new-satellite-da...
article said:
the map at which JAXA spokesman Sasano was pointing been expected by most experts to show that western nations are to blame for substantial increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, causing global warming. But to an officious looking TV interviewer Sasano turned greenhouse gas theory on it’s head.
According to UN science the greenhouse gas theory says more CO2 entering the atmosphere will warm the planet, while less CO2 is associated with cooling.
Gesturing to an indelible deep green hue streaked across the United States and Europe viewers were told, “in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels.”
It makes sense when you think about the actual efficiency of out industrial energy distribution system.According to UN science the greenhouse gas theory says more CO2 entering the atmosphere will warm the planet, while less CO2 is associated with cooling.
Gesturing to an indelible deep green hue streaked across the United States and Europe viewers were told, “in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels.”
Agreed, gone very quiet in here. (Does that mean the science is settled?) 
However, if anyone wanted some analysis of why CO2 levels lag temp change then you can find a talk here.
Very interesting stuff. It's all very much Fourier stuff proving (lack of) causality with a slight bit of politic thrown in.
Enjoy!
However, if anyone wanted some analysis of why CO2 levels lag temp change then you can find a talk here.
Very interesting stuff. It's all very much Fourier stuff proving (lack of) causality with a slight bit of politic thrown in.
Enjoy!
Question to people who think AGW is bunkum...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
By trying to keep it simple I'm hoping to get people to realise you can't believe everything you read on the internet (especially people opinions and views) but the statements above are undisputable. Then factor in that scientists have looked at all sorts of reasons that your average Joe seems to think they might have forgotten to look at ( like the sun, or ice age cycles) and they came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven.
Then - and this we can all agree to argue on... is what happens next?
The best answer is - it's doesn't matter, ignore CO2 completely and work out how much energy we will need, how much we can extract and what will happen to prices. When you do that the economics of alternative energy sources make more sense than trying to work out the temperature of Greenland in 100 years time.
We still have the issue that forecasting energy prices is difficult (if it wasn't I'd be making more money than I do now), but it's a lot easier to predict global energy needs than it is temperature. What we'll find is that we are limited by capital investments on how fast we can get it on the ground and extracted. So if you have £1 to invest... where is the best place to stick it to get a return on your money.
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Still think you know more about climate science than the climate scientists and that all these blogs your reading have no motivation behind them?
I wouldn't claim to be a climate scientist, but I can see when someone is trying to pull a fast one by using FUD tactics. Oh boo hoo .. warmists will wreck the economy etc.
What if the truth is really that instead of spending all our cash on fuel, we'll spend it on products that are useful to us, that don't happen to rely on the burning of fossil fuels. the big myth about economic growth is that the growth is driven by energy consumption. It's not. It's driven by efficiency. Machines replaced manual labour, machines got more efficient and used less fuel, if we can used less and less, and maybe even take a higher capital cost for free continuous energy input - and achieve a higher net efficiency - we'll have more left over to spend on other things.
Go back to basics... what do we need fuels for - transportation, warmth, making stuff. BUT... it's doesn't have to be derived from fossil's. The only people really scared of alternative energy are energy companies who don't have a fossil exit strategy.
Eventually they will get to the point where something like hydrogen or hot swap batteries and installing home charging stations makes better sense for them financially too - but until they can work out how to keep charging us a few grand a year each... they aren't as on board as their green wash adverts claim to be. They're stuck with trillions of dollars of invested plant and rights they've paid for. So need to get their returns.
Me I'm waiting for an electric car - something like the E-Tron quattro with 800hp. Till then... I'll keep to the unleaded.
Discuss...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
By trying to keep it simple I'm hoping to get people to realise you can't believe everything you read on the internet (especially people opinions and views) but the statements above are undisputable. Then factor in that scientists have looked at all sorts of reasons that your average Joe seems to think they might have forgotten to look at ( like the sun, or ice age cycles) and they came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven.
Then - and this we can all agree to argue on... is what happens next?
The best answer is - it's doesn't matter, ignore CO2 completely and work out how much energy we will need, how much we can extract and what will happen to prices. When you do that the economics of alternative energy sources make more sense than trying to work out the temperature of Greenland in 100 years time.
We still have the issue that forecasting energy prices is difficult (if it wasn't I'd be making more money than I do now), but it's a lot easier to predict global energy needs than it is temperature. What we'll find is that we are limited by capital investments on how fast we can get it on the ground and extracted. So if you have £1 to invest... where is the best place to stick it to get a return on your money.
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Still think you know more about climate science than the climate scientists and that all these blogs your reading have no motivation behind them?
I wouldn't claim to be a climate scientist, but I can see when someone is trying to pull a fast one by using FUD tactics. Oh boo hoo .. warmists will wreck the economy etc.
What if the truth is really that instead of spending all our cash on fuel, we'll spend it on products that are useful to us, that don't happen to rely on the burning of fossil fuels. the big myth about economic growth is that the growth is driven by energy consumption. It's not. It's driven by efficiency. Machines replaced manual labour, machines got more efficient and used less fuel, if we can used less and less, and maybe even take a higher capital cost for free continuous energy input - and achieve a higher net efficiency - we'll have more left over to spend on other things.
Go back to basics... what do we need fuels for - transportation, warmth, making stuff. BUT... it's doesn't have to be derived from fossil's. The only people really scared of alternative energy are energy companies who don't have a fossil exit strategy.
Eventually they will get to the point where something like hydrogen or hot swap batteries and installing home charging stations makes better sense for them financially too - but until they can work out how to keep charging us a few grand a year each... they aren't as on board as their green wash adverts claim to be. They're stuck with trillions of dollars of invested plant and rights they've paid for. So need to get their returns.
Me I'm waiting for an electric car - something like the E-Tron quattro with 800hp. Till then... I'll keep to the unleaded.
Discuss...
TransverseTight said:
Question to people who think AGW is bunkum...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
Actually if you study the Vostok ice cores you'll note that CO2 is a temperature indicator, and always lags temperature. But that's just the last 400,000 years, lets fast forward to point 3) - there has been a 10% increase in CO2 during the same period that temperatures have flatlined.Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
All four of your questions assume that CO2 is the primary driver of earth climate, but that assumption is false. The premise that CO2 levels drive earth climate has been proven incorrect many times and in many different ways. CO2 has a minor effect but is totally swamped by natural forces, it is swamped directly by water plus water vapour and indirectly by the main climate driver of earth: Cloud cover.
Unless you can somehow get your CO2 to directly influence cloud cover then your AGW theory is dead in the water. Sorry.
TransverseTight said:
Discuss...
(a)..Spot the rogue apostrophe.(b)..Delete your, insert you're
(c)..Do you know that 97% of greenhouse gas is water vapour, carbon dioxide is a part of the remaining 3% and 95% of that occurs naturally? So we're producing about bugger all of bugger all in the way of greenhouse gas. Wouldn't worry about that if I were you. I'd be worrying about the £billions the government is pissing up the wall to combat a non existent problem and kill old people who can't afford to keep warm.
TransverseTight said:
Question to people who think AGW is bunkum...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
By trying to keep it simple I'm hoping to get people to realise you can't believe everything you read on the internet (especially people opinions and views) but the statements above are undisputable. Then factor in that scientists have looked at all sorts of reasons that your average Joe seems to think they might have forgotten to look at ( like the sun, or ice age cycles) and they came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven.
Then - and this we can all agree to argue on... is what happens next?
The best answer is - it's doesn't matter, ignore CO2 completely and work out how much energy we will need, how much we can extract and what will happen to prices. When you do that the economics of alternative energy sources make more sense than trying to work out the temperature of Greenland in 100 years time.
We still have the issue that forecasting energy prices is difficult (if it wasn't I'd be making more money than I do now), but it's a lot easier to predict global energy needs than it is temperature. What we'll find is that we are limited by capital investments on how fast we can get it on the ground and extracted. So if you have £1 to invest... where is the best place to stick it to get a return on your money.
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Still think you know more about climate science than the climate scientists and that all these blogs your reading have no motivation behind them?
I wouldn't claim to be a climate scientist, but I can see when someone is trying to pull a fast one by using FUD tactics. Oh boo hoo .. warmists will wreck the economy etc.
What if the truth is really that instead of spending all our cash on fuel, we'll spend it on products that are useful to us, that don't happen to rely on the burning of fossil fuels. the big myth about economic growth is that the growth is driven by energy consumption. It's not. It's driven by efficiency. Machines replaced manual labour, machines got more efficient and used less fuel, if we can used less and less, and maybe even take a higher capital cost for free continuous energy input - and achieve a higher net efficiency - we'll have more left over to spend on other things.
Go back to basics... what do we need fuels for - transportation, warmth, making stuff. BUT... it's doesn't have to be derived from fossil's. The only people really scared of alternative energy are energy companies who don't have a fossil exit strategy.
Eventually they will get to the point where something like hydrogen or hot swap batteries and installing home charging stations makes better sense for them financially too - but until they can work out how to keep charging us a few grand a year each... they aren't as on board as their green wash adverts claim to be. They're stuck with trillions of dollars of invested plant and rights they've paid for. So need to get their returns.
Me I'm waiting for an electric car - something like the E-Tron quattro with 800hp. Till then... I'll keep to the unleaded.
Discuss...
I also agree that efficiency drives economic growth.Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
By trying to keep it simple I'm hoping to get people to realise you can't believe everything you read on the internet (especially people opinions and views) but the statements above are undisputable. Then factor in that scientists have looked at all sorts of reasons that your average Joe seems to think they might have forgotten to look at ( like the sun, or ice age cycles) and they came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven.
Then - and this we can all agree to argue on... is what happens next?
The best answer is - it's doesn't matter, ignore CO2 completely and work out how much energy we will need, how much we can extract and what will happen to prices. When you do that the economics of alternative energy sources make more sense than trying to work out the temperature of Greenland in 100 years time.
We still have the issue that forecasting energy prices is difficult (if it wasn't I'd be making more money than I do now), but it's a lot easier to predict global energy needs than it is temperature. What we'll find is that we are limited by capital investments on how fast we can get it on the ground and extracted. So if you have £1 to invest... where is the best place to stick it to get a return on your money.
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Still think you know more about climate science than the climate scientists and that all these blogs your reading have no motivation behind them?
I wouldn't claim to be a climate scientist, but I can see when someone is trying to pull a fast one by using FUD tactics. Oh boo hoo .. warmists will wreck the economy etc.
What if the truth is really that instead of spending all our cash on fuel, we'll spend it on products that are useful to us, that don't happen to rely on the burning of fossil fuels. the big myth about economic growth is that the growth is driven by energy consumption. It's not. It's driven by efficiency. Machines replaced manual labour, machines got more efficient and used less fuel, if we can used less and less, and maybe even take a higher capital cost for free continuous energy input - and achieve a higher net efficiency - we'll have more left over to spend on other things.
Go back to basics... what do we need fuels for - transportation, warmth, making stuff. BUT... it's doesn't have to be derived from fossil's. The only people really scared of alternative energy are energy companies who don't have a fossil exit strategy.
Eventually they will get to the point where something like hydrogen or hot swap batteries and installing home charging stations makes better sense for them financially too - but until they can work out how to keep charging us a few grand a year each... they aren't as on board as their green wash adverts claim to be. They're stuck with trillions of dollars of invested plant and rights they've paid for. So need to get their returns.
Me I'm waiting for an electric car - something like the E-Tron quattro with 800hp. Till then... I'll keep to the unleaded.
Discuss...
I disagree that there is some conspiracy amoung blogsites to discredit climate science. I think mainstream climate science has become politicised and defective, it has become a "cause" or even worse, simply a means to pay the mortgage, where honesty and openness play second fiddle.
Regarding your 4 points, I agree with all statements, but I am still sceptical of CAGW. We (including climate scientists) do not know what the feedback mechanisms are. Mainstream climate science seems to think that climate change alarmism works. It doesn't.
I would like to see huge investment in clean(er) nuclear technology, but it's not fashionable at the moment. It's been lumped in with the "bad" energy sources by the media.
One final thing that winds me up. Why do those who are vocal in their belief of CAGW live exactly the same lifestyle as the sceptical? Hypocrisy anyone?
Globs said:
All four of your questions assume that CO2 is the primary driver of earth climate, but that assumption is false. The premise that CO2 levels drive earth climate has been proven incorrect many times and in many different ways. CO2 has a minor effect but is totally swamped by natural forces, it is swamped directly by water plus water vapour and indirectly by the main climate driver of earth: Cloud cover.
Unless you can somehow get your CO2 to directly influence cloud cover then your AGW theory is dead in the water. Sorry.
I didn't say CO2 was the primary driver. Much as the same a match isn't the primary driver of an increase in your house temperature... if you drop it on a bucket of petrol underneath the curtains.Unless you can somehow get your CO2 to directly influence cloud cover then your AGW theory is dead in the water. Sorry.
I'm not a climate scientist. More of an casual armchair observer. If I was going to study climate science, as a PhD my hypothesis would be along the lines of ... Can a small forced increase in temperatures outside of natural variability leads to an catalytic effect on other process such as cloud formation. Of course - the only real way to answer this question, is to run a life size simulation... using the Earth as a test bed. Which is what we are doing. I'll get back to you in 50 years with the answer.
Surely when things do things they haven't done before - it's time to ask why that is! 400ppm. Normal natural variation. I don't think so. Cloud cover doesn't increase CO2. But we have measured how much we burn. It's getting on for 30 billion tonnes a year now. This is not a small change. 0.5% per year we are talking. Lets say we were talking salt content of your blood. That sort of change year on year would kill you eventually. What I don't get is why so many people seem to try and dismuss this amount of change in one of the gasses that has a large effect on temperature.
I agree - water vapour is the biggest influencer - and is also the biggest unknown when you take a good look through the IPCC report. But the other think you spot when looking at the IPCC reports is they have to water down a lot of the science to get consensus. The 2007 report suggested the Artic models might see the see ice free in summer sometime towards the end of the century. What's happened is that it's more likely to be by 2020! So change has been more rpaid than predicted - that's with this flat line atmospheric temperate (that actually isn't flat on multidecadal cycles) and ignores the fact that most of the heat is going into the sea. But I still see the same pseudo junk science I saw when I was "really into" arguing about this stuff.
I gave up arguing over is it us or not 5 years ago. I was convinced then myself - and it's comes down to this.... Most people make a decision on whether they believe climate change is AGW or natural based on some underlying belief system, and then seek evidence to support it. Maybe they are afraid of change and don't want it to be true, or like the idea of new tech and think it would be better to have something newer to replace dirty old fossils.
I'm still open minded, and love new tech, but am 75% in the it's AGW camp. What I do think though it is' time to focus on energy use and sustainability - not in a green fluffy bunny sense - but in availability and pricing and it's economic effects. Whilst there's an idea that fracking and shale oil might have a temporary economic benefit, by having price reduction effects, my issues is the cost of energy recovery is getting much higher and it seems to make more sense to swap to alternatives sooner than keep chasing oil and make the CO2 question redundant.
E.g. A simple idea... would be to have powerline pickups along side roads - either scalextric buried in the road or bumper car/tram style overhead. Either way - this makes electric cars useable as they don't need energy storage - just enough to get to a main arterial road (assuming they'd upgrade those first).
Then we can switch to nuclear and debates about CO2 and climate will be history.
TransverseTight said:
Question to people who think AGW is bunkum...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
By trying to keep it simple I'm hoping to get people to realise you can't believe everything you read on the internet (especially people opinions and views) but the statements above are undisputable. Then factor in that scientists have looked at all sorts of reasons that your average Joe seems to think they might have forgotten to look at ( like the sun, or ice age cycles) and they came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven.
Then - and this we can all agree to argue on... is what happens next?
The best answer is - it's doesn't matter, ignore CO2 completely and work out how much energy we will need, how much we can extract and what will happen to prices. When you do that the economics of alternative energy sources make more sense than trying to work out the temperature of Greenland in 100 years time.
We still have the issue that forecasting energy prices is difficult (if it wasn't I'd be making more money than I do now), but it's a lot easier to predict global energy needs than it is temperature. What we'll find is that we are limited by capital investments on how fast we can get it on the ground and extracted. So if you have £1 to invest... where is the best place to stick it to get a return on your money.
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Still think you know more about climate science than the climate scientists and that all these blogs your reading have no motivation behind them?
I wouldn't claim to be a climate scientist, but I can see when someone is trying to pull a fast one by using FUD tactics. Oh boo hoo .. warmists will wreck the economy etc.
What if the truth is really that instead of spending all our cash on fuel, we'll spend it on products that are useful to us, that don't happen to rely on the burning of fossil fuels. the big myth about economic growth is that the growth is driven by energy consumption. It's not. It's driven by efficiency. Machines replaced manual labour, machines got more efficient and used less fuel, if we can used less and less, and maybe even take a higher capital cost for free continuous energy input - and achieve a higher net efficiency - we'll have more left over to spend on other things.
Go back to basics... what do we need fuels for - transportation, warmth, making stuff. BUT... it's doesn't have to be derived from fossil's. The only people really scared of alternative energy are energy companies who don't have a fossil exit strategy.
Eventually they will get to the point where something like hydrogen or hot swap batteries and installing home charging stations makes better sense for them financially too - but until they can work out how to keep charging us a few grand a year each... they aren't as on board as their green wash adverts claim to be. They're stuck with trillions of dollars of invested plant and rights they've paid for. So need to get their returns.
Me I'm waiting for an electric car - something like the E-Tron quattro with 800hp. Till then... I'll keep to the unleaded.
Discuss...
If co2 is so bad, why are we clearing co2 absorbing areas (forests etc.) to make way for biofuel plantations? That doesn't make sense to me at all.Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
By trying to keep it simple I'm hoping to get people to realise you can't believe everything you read on the internet (especially people opinions and views) but the statements above are undisputable. Then factor in that scientists have looked at all sorts of reasons that your average Joe seems to think they might have forgotten to look at ( like the sun, or ice age cycles) and they came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven.
Then - and this we can all agree to argue on... is what happens next?
The best answer is - it's doesn't matter, ignore CO2 completely and work out how much energy we will need, how much we can extract and what will happen to prices. When you do that the economics of alternative energy sources make more sense than trying to work out the temperature of Greenland in 100 years time.
We still have the issue that forecasting energy prices is difficult (if it wasn't I'd be making more money than I do now), but it's a lot easier to predict global energy needs than it is temperature. What we'll find is that we are limited by capital investments on how fast we can get it on the ground and extracted. So if you have £1 to invest... where is the best place to stick it to get a return on your money.
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Still think you know more about climate science than the climate scientists and that all these blogs your reading have no motivation behind them?
I wouldn't claim to be a climate scientist, but I can see when someone is trying to pull a fast one by using FUD tactics. Oh boo hoo .. warmists will wreck the economy etc.
What if the truth is really that instead of spending all our cash on fuel, we'll spend it on products that are useful to us, that don't happen to rely on the burning of fossil fuels. the big myth about economic growth is that the growth is driven by energy consumption. It's not. It's driven by efficiency. Machines replaced manual labour, machines got more efficient and used less fuel, if we can used less and less, and maybe even take a higher capital cost for free continuous energy input - and achieve a higher net efficiency - we'll have more left over to spend on other things.
Go back to basics... what do we need fuels for - transportation, warmth, making stuff. BUT... it's doesn't have to be derived from fossil's. The only people really scared of alternative energy are energy companies who don't have a fossil exit strategy.
Eventually they will get to the point where something like hydrogen or hot swap batteries and installing home charging stations makes better sense for them financially too - but until they can work out how to keep charging us a few grand a year each... they aren't as on board as their green wash adverts claim to be. They're stuck with trillions of dollars of invested plant and rights they've paid for. So need to get their returns.
Me I'm waiting for an electric car - something like the E-Tron quattro with 800hp. Till then... I'll keep to the unleaded.
Discuss...
I think there's one thing I Really need to point out... this issues of CO2 being bugger all percent of bugger all. It's one of those points floating round the blogosphere that is simply so untrue it's criminal to repeat it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcin...
Not sure if that will work... but if not google graph of climate forcings. It shows the net effect of different things that add to the change in temperature that has been observed. You'll notice the effect of the CO2 isn't small and has a fairly limted range of uncertainty.
But also - clouds have a negative effect. They reduce the temperature. Maybe that will save us (a bit). Again, a hypothesis might be... as sea temperatures increase do we get more evaporation leading to higher cloud cover - offsetting most of the CO2 temperature gains. The uncertainty bars on that graph - make it a possibility - but the consensus is that no - the net gain is high ( on the right).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcin...
Not sure if that will work... but if not google graph of climate forcings. It shows the net effect of different things that add to the change in temperature that has been observed. You'll notice the effect of the CO2 isn't small and has a fairly limted range of uncertainty.
But also - clouds have a negative effect. They reduce the temperature. Maybe that will save us (a bit). Again, a hypothesis might be... as sea temperatures increase do we get more evaporation leading to higher cloud cover - offsetting most of the CO2 temperature gains. The uncertainty bars on that graph - make it a possibility - but the consensus is that no - the net gain is high ( on the right).
TransverseTight said:
Question to people who think AGW is bunkum...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.Care to evidence this one?
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.0.5% of what exactly?
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.how many parts per million of the atmosphere should be CO2, ideally?
...
Snipped there - We can start at the top with your facts for now and leave till later the idea that all non-AGW blog posters are robots. Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.Care to evidence this one?
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.0.5% of what exactly?
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.how many parts per million of the atmosphere should be CO2, ideally?
...
and the idea that Scientists ( which scientists? ) "came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven." without any other scientists disputing this at all, and that all posters on here are "average Joes" who know very little about the subject.
Closing off with some (as-yet-unperfected?) alternative that will develop (how?) and save us all, which is way down the list of things that are wrong with this post
You need to read some of these threads again - Many well referenced and clearly written posts on here from intelligent professionals and academics (not robots) have gone before you, and shattered what faith I had in the Green movement, in my youth and made me seriously angry at those who are making such a mess of policy, industry and welfare in the name of Global Warming - When even the inventors of that term are loathe to speak it aloud, preferring instead to muddy the waters with Climate Change and Chaos - Fear, uncertainty and doubt indeed
funkyrobot said:
If co2 is so bad, why are we clearing co2 absorbing areas (forests etc.) to make way for biofuel plantations? That doesn't make sense to me at all.
Because energy companies don't make money from selling trees, they make it from selling liquid fuels derived from palm oil. PS I should have a signature that says, I have no qualifications in energy, but I know more about it than anyone else I know (and I work for an energy company). Still think I might get off to the OU one day to get some credentials, but that would take time that I could spend reading and learning more useful stuff instead ;-)
TransverseTight said:
Globs said:
All four of your questions assume that CO2 is the primary driver of earth climate, but that assumption is false. The premise that CO2 levels drive earth climate has been proven incorrect many times and in many different ways. CO2 has a minor effect but is totally swamped by natural forces, it is swamped directly by water plus water vapour and indirectly by the main climate driver of earth: Cloud cover.
Unless you can somehow get your CO2 to directly influence cloud cover then your AGW theory is dead in the water. Sorry.
I didn't say CO2 was the primary driver. Unless you can somehow get your CO2 to directly influence cloud cover then your AGW theory is dead in the water. Sorry.
Silver Smudger said:
Snipped there - We can start at the top with your facts for now and leave till later the idea that all non-AGW blog posters are robots.
and the idea that Scientists ( which scientists? ) "came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven." without any other scientists disputing this at all, and that all posters on here are "average Joes" who know very little about the subject.
Closing off with some (as-yet-unperfected?) alternative that will develop (how?) and save us all, which is way down the list of things that are wrong with this post
You need to read some of these threads again - Many well referenced and clearly written posts on here from intelligent professionals and academics (not robots) have gone before you, and shattered what faith I had in the Green movement, in my youth and made me seriously angry at those who are making such a mess of policy, industry and welfare in the name of Global Warming - When even the inventors of that term are loathe to speak it aloud, preferring instead to muddy the waters with Climate Change and Chaos - Fear, uncertainty and doubt indeed
Smudger. I understand. I've given up on the green movement. It's in tatters, it;s been hijacked by greenwash and frankly no one gives a monkeys. I'm sure If I had the time to go back through all these threads - I'd find what I already know. There's a lot of people who have different opinions.and the idea that Scientists ( which scientists? ) "came up with the conclusion the warming seen so far was CO2 driven." without any other scientists disputing this at all, and that all posters on here are "average Joes" who know very little about the subject.
Closing off with some (as-yet-unperfected?) alternative that will develop (how?) and save us all, which is way down the list of things that are wrong with this post
You need to read some of these threads again - Many well referenced and clearly written posts on here from intelligent professionals and academics (not robots) have gone before you, and shattered what faith I had in the Green movement, in my youth and made me seriously angry at those who are making such a mess of policy, industry and welfare in the name of Global Warming - When even the inventors of that term are loathe to speak it aloud, preferring instead to muddy the waters with Climate Change and Chaos - Fear, uncertainty and doubt indeed
You rightly called me to task on an as yet unperfected (actually unstarted) means on energy for cars. I'm always saying - sod fusion, sod PV in the UK, get lots more wind an some nuclear, and a couple more pumped hydro caverns (which we can build) stick to what we know and get it done. I blame Blair for pussy footing around for so long trying to decide, when he should have just order 10 new nuclear plants, and about 100,000 deep water offshore turbines to be built (using exisiting oil rig technology). Simple.
Robots.. I'll see if I can dig up the articles on how companies claim to be able to do just this.. whether it's for advertising a product, or trying to influence government policy. I'm not talking about a thread like this with heavy debate (but I bet there's some robot posts)... but programmes that look for a bit of chit chat about climate change and then post "IT's all the sun any way isn't it". I actually think the Daily Mail have their own blog robots, lol... how much was his house worth? These companies have people running live accounts in dozens of user ids - reposting the same chatter, and then when a client comes along - they give them access to a "user id with a history of posting" to put in whatever influential message they want. Where it be brand A butter is better than Brand B because.... or climate change is all cack because....
The key thing is you can sponsor a junk paper get it published, and then cross port it to thousands of forums all over the place and cast a little more doubt on the science. It gets much more new coverage than "yeah we still think AGW is the same as last year".
TransverseTight said:
I think there's one thing I Really need to point out... this issues of CO2 being bugger all percent of bugger all. It's one of those points floating round the blogosphere that is simply so untrue it's criminal to repeat it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcin...
Not sure if that will work... but if not google graph of climate forcings. It shows the net effect of different things that add to the change in temperature that has been observed. You'll notice the effect of the CO2 isn't small and has a fairly limted range of uncertainty.
You have absolute faith in your sources, do you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcin...
Not sure if that will work... but if not google graph of climate forcings. It shows the net effect of different things that add to the change in temperature that has been observed. You'll notice the effect of the CO2 isn't small and has a fairly limted range of uncertainty.
Globs said:
Yes, you did. With all four questions. Duh.
Oh no I didn't. ;-) You are the one assuming I said CO2 is the primary driver.
The point I'm trying to make - is that given all those are facts, how can we then say CO2 is not having an effect on the climate and it's natural. When I first started looking into what might be causing the temperature increase (doing secondary research on other people's scientific papers - not reading the Guardian or Daily Mail) I thought it might be the heat form the actual burning of stuff. But that theory soon went out the window - think it had been discredited probably before I was born. LOL
And if anyone asks me for a reference to source material - sod off - it's all in my head and long forgotten exactly where from. DYOR and use google. :-P
Starting with the IPCC reports and then back tracking their reference material usually helps. But a lot of it you need to be a climate scientist with a degree in maths to understand.
mybrainhurts said:
You have absolute faith in your sources, do you?
You must be a robot. Anyone who questions someone's sources means they don't know how to think for themselves or do their own research and therefore has no intelligence (i.e a preprogrammed robot). It's also the easiest way to try and discredit someone's point of view by asking if they are sure of their source. So now I know you are a robot working for an energy company. OK a Wikipedia graph isn't the best source, but it reminds me of my grandmother. And besides, it's on wiki - surely it's cant be wrong.
TransverseTight said:
You must be a robot. Anyone who questions someone's sources means they don't know how to think for themselves or do their own research and therefore has no intelligence (i.e a preprogrammed robot). It's also the easiest way to try and discredit someone's point of view by asking if they are sure of their source. So now I know you are a robot working for an energy company.
OK a Wikipedia graph isn't the best source, but it reminds me of my grandmother. And besides, it's on wiki - surely it's cant be wrong.
OK a Wikipedia graph isn't the best source, but it reminds me of my grandmother. And besides, it's on wiki - surely it's cant be wrong.
at MBH being an android; he's the grumpiest since Douglas Adams dreamt up Marvin. Also at your faith in wiki accuracy; it's a convenient reference, but unless I can find something independent that agrees with it it belongs with the tooth fairy and the Daily Mail.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff