Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STMO999]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

......I won't mention that current Co2 levels are  at almost 400 ppm ....

[Nickbat]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

......I won't mention that current Co2 levels are  at almost 400 ppm ....

388.09ppm, actually. That's all of 0.0388% of our atmosphere...

Good news for the biosphere. 

[Chris_H]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

......I won't mention that current Co2 levels are  at almost 400 ppm ....

388.09ppm, actually. That's all of 0.0388% of our atmosphere...

Good news for the biosphere. 

He didn't mention it.  You can't answer him. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

......I won't mention that current Co2 levels are  at almost 400 ppm ....

388.09ppm, actually. That's all of 0.0388% of our atmosphere...

Good news for the biosphere. 

.....and rising.......Nick....I understand that 300ppm ....was surpassed in 1960.....

[STMO999]

knickers knackers knockers.

[jereboam]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

......I won't mention that current Co2 levels are  at almost 400 ppm ....

388.09ppm, actually. That's all of 0.0388% of our atmosphere...

Good news for the biosphere. 

.....and rising.......Nick....I understand that 300ppm ....was surpassed in 1960.....

Interesting number.  Let me first admit that I haven't actually read every paper so far published on this topic.  So may I ask a question here?

Presumably someone has managed to correlate CO₂ levels with global temperature, otherwise they wouldn't be banging on about AGW.  But what I want to know is: has anyone actually established the mechanism by which these two phenomena are related?  And has there been any quantitive analysis to establish the rate at which atmospheric CO₂ converts solar radiation to whatever form of heat it is that increases the temperature of the planet.  The greenhouse effect is well established, but if you read any simple explanation of how it works, it doesn't look like it happens instantly - it's a progressive thing, and the numbers need to be justified.  Somebody must have done this, but it isn't the sort of thing that makes the headlines, and my Googling skills haven't dug it out yet.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

knickers knackers knockers.

......you virtually begged me to post on this thread.......and now you're complaining..

[Mr Skrunts]

Have'nt llooked in this thread since page 1, see it's still full of gas bags 

[Nickbat]

If this thread goes on much longer ......then I shall add my "Global warming is real and caused by modern man"....contribution.
.........and you don't want that to happen .....do you?. :

No.

......I won't mention that current Co2 levels are  at almost 400 ppm ....

388.09ppm, actually. That's all of 0.0388% of our atmosphere...

Good news for the biosphere. 

.....and rising.......Nick....I understand that 300ppm ....was surpassed in 1960.....

Interesting number.  Let me first admit that I haven't actually read every paper so far published on this topic.  So may I ask a question here?

Presumably someone has managed to correlate CO₂ levels with global temperature, otherwise they wouldn't be banging on about AGW.  But what I want to know is: has anyone actually established the mechanism by which these two phenomena are related?  And has there been any quantitive analysis to establish the rate at which atmospheric CO₂ converts solar radiation to whatever form of heat it is that increases the temperature of the planet.  The greenhouse effect is well established, but if you read any simple explanation of how it works, it doesn't look like it happens instantly - it's a progressive thing, and the numbers need to be justified.  Somebody must have done this, but it isn't the sort of thing that makes the headlines, and my Googling skills haven't dug it out yet.

For an good primer on the subject, I tend to recommend this, written by James A Peden, who knows a lot about mass spectometry. Yes, he is a sceptic, so it won't please some, but I challenge anyone to disprove what he says about radiation.

An easy read, unlike much of the scientific stuff I read. 

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#bio

[Entwood]

Have'nt llooked in this thread since page 1, see it's still full of gas bags 

Ahhh ...but if they bagged all the CO2 then global warming would decrease, if of course it is the cause .. if it is not ... then maybe bagging it will make global warming actually occur unless of course .......

What was I on about    

[jereboam]

For an good primer on the subject, I tend to recommend this, written by James A Peden, who knows a lot about mass spectometry. Yes, he is a sceptic, so it won't please some, but I challenge anyone to disprove what he says about radiation.

An easy read, unlike much of the scientific stuff I read. 

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#bio

Excellent!  He's saying what I've been saying!

Look at the deltas, establish causal relationships, just think about the numbers.

Piltdown man - should have thought of that one.

And of course, carbon offset is bunk, when it's not outright fraud.   

I knew I was right!

[Dishevelled Den]

For an good primer on the subject, I tend to recommend this, written by James A Peden, who knows a lot about mass spectometry. Yes, he is a sceptic, so it won't please some, but I challenge anyone to disprove what he says about radiation.

An easy read, unlike much of the scientific stuff I read. 

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#bio

Thanks for the link Nick - very interesting.

My simplistic view of how the sun figures in this may well hold weight after all.

[Dishevelled Den]

Further evidence comes to light this morning with regard to the deliberate hiding of data by a coupe of the scientists right at the heart of the global warming scandal.

OK, you may think that a bit "old hat". But what IS interesting is that this piece of investigative journalism comes from The Guardian!

What is even more interesting is that the journos at The Guardian tipped off the most popular sceptic WUWT website before they published the story.

Wow. The AGW bandwagon seems to be having a slow-motion crash.

Most enjoyable to watch. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/climategate-intensifies-jones-and-wang-hid-chinese-station-data-issues/ 

Perhaps the AGW protagonists are becoming concerned that the positive publicity they’ve enjoyed and capitalised on for so long has been turned and used to cause a dent in their case.

The by-line in that Guardian article leads us to that gold-plated environmentalist Pierce who seems to recognise the import of this counter argument, as he ends a piece with this paragraph;


I have been speaking to a PR operator for one of the world’s leading environmental organizations. Most unusually, he didn’t want to be quoted. But his message is clear. The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved

But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic

Read more at;

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221

[Nickbat]

Further evidence comes to light this morning with regard to the deliberate hiding of data by a coupe of the scientists right at the heart of the global warming scandal.

OK, you may think that a bit "old hat". But what IS interesting is that this piece of investigative journalism comes from The Guardian!

What is even more interesting is that the journos at The Guardian tipped off the most popular sceptic WUWT website before they published the story.

Wow. The AGW bandwagon seems to be having a slow-motion crash.

Most enjoyable to watch. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/climategate-intensifies-jones-and-wang-hid-chinese-station-data-issues/ 

Perhaps the AGW protagonists are becoming concerned that the positive publicity they’ve enjoyed and capitalised on for so long has been turned and used to cause a dent in their case.

The by-line in that Guardian article leads us to that gold-plated environmentalist Pierce who seems to recognises the import of this counter argument, as he ends a piece with this paragraph;


I have been speaking to a PR operator for one of the world’s leading environmental organizations. Most unusually, he didn’t want to be quoted. But his message is clear. The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved

But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic

Read more at;

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221

Good link, Zulu.

Fred Pierce seems to have suffered a complete Damascene conversion at that point! 

This is from tomorrow's Grauniad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review