Resisting Climate Hysteria

[OzWaveGuy]

Though I am of the opinion that co2 levels can have a small impact on climate, I think the above experiment and implied conclusion re magnitude is disingenuous.

1/ Earth's climate is not a closed system like a coke bottle

2/ We have already had a rise in co2 something of the order as in the "experiment" (more in fact), yet where is the observed increase in temperature over and above the trend since the mini ice age?

The implication that a rise in co2 levels to 430ppm will cause a rise in Earth's temperature of 3 degrees C is frankly, ludicrous.

But Wayne, this is a revolution.....think about it...."green" supermarkets will start selling 1.25lt bottles of CO2...just imagine on a cold but sunny day, you could purchase a small bottle of CO2 and give each sunny room in your house a squirt of gas and watch your house temp rise 6 or more degrees. The savings on power bills would be huge.

Thanks Knobby, no more cold days for me here in CBR. Those climate blogs you subscribe to are just amazing.

Hopefully someone can find some observed evidence of the earth heating from man's 0.00112% CO2 contribution too.

 

[wayneL]

But Wayne, this is a revolution.....think about it...."green" supermarkets will start selling 1.25lt bottles of CO2...just imagine on a cold but sunny day, you could purchase a small bottle of CO2 and give each sunny room in your house a squirt of gas and watch your house temp rise 6 or more degrees. The savings on power bills would be huge.

Well methane is a more potent Gh gas. Just eat more baked beans and walk into said rooms when passing wind and voila!

 

[Ruby]

Now the previous experiment proved that carbon dioxide is a greenhous gas......................

This experiment shows the effect at trace levels.
Experiment #2: Carbon dioxide chamber. ........................

And to add to what Wayne said............. observation has shown that in the real atmosphere, the rise in CO2 plotted against the rise in temperature is not a straight line, it is a parabolic curve. In fact, after a while, further increases in CO2 have little impact on temperature. Although atmospheric CO2 has risen in the last 10 years, the global temperature has not.

We're projected to reach that level of CO2 sometime after the year 2020.

Projections, projections, projections..........yes, sure, we may reach that level of CO2 in that time, but we won't have your predicted temperature.

You are forgetting that there are lots of other factors to take into account, two of which are feedback systems (which I think are not fully understood yet) and solar activity. Climate scientists are constantly discovering new things about our climate, so the science is neither settled nor as simplistic as you imply.

 

[Ruby]

So why are we having these 100 year floods and heatwaves all close together much more often.

Explod, what makes you think we are having these events more often? More often than when? How do you know there weren't similar temperature spikes in Victoria 250 years ago? We weren't here to record it then. Devastating floods such as the one we had in Brisbane in January have happened before.

Why are "one in 100 year" events so unusual? Are you suggesting that human CO2 emissions are causing all these things, and that they wouldn't happen if it were not for us? 100 years is nothing in geological time. These things have always happened.

 

[Ruby]

Well methane is a more potent Gh gas.

So is water vapour.......

 

[ghotib]

Ruby,

It would be helpful if you would provide citations for your statements.

Thank you.

Ghoti

 

[explod]

Explod, what makes you think we are having these events more often? More often than when? How do you know there weren't similar temperature spikes in Victoria 250 years ago? We weren't here to record it then. Devastating floods such as the one we had in Brisbane in January have happened before.

Why are "one in 100 year" events so unusual? Are you suggesting that human CO2 emissions are causing all these things, and that they wouldn't happen if it were not for us? 100 years is nothing in geological time. These things have always happened.

Daah, I do not know and did make it clear that I am speaking as we know it in our own time just seems interesting that there has been an enourmouse increase since we came here.

Seems also interesting how everyone jumps 30 feet on anyone that may put up arguments that indicate we may have a problem.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Daah, I do not know and did make it clear that I am speaking as we know it in our own time just seems interesting that there has been an enourmouse increase since we came here.

Not the additional gas from your rear end is it.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Seems also interesting how everyone jumps 30 feet on anyone that may put up arguments that indicate we may have a problem.

30 feet, no, just 30yrs of AGW could's, should's, maybe's, possibly's, projected, rises and alarms that are wrapped up in disclaimers that we've been subjected to.

People are tired of the BS - show us observed proof, not more nonsense that you consider as substantial arguments, it's beyond a joke.

 

[explod]

Not the additional gas from your rear end is it.

No just the so called 100 year events every couple of years.

And the rear end, now worries, goes off like an old lands bulldog tractor. Due soon.

 

[Julia]

Oh I know, the blown out of proprtion percentage of sceptical scientists say its all happened before, before official records were kept or something like that.

So can you explain why specifically you don't find this an acceptable explanation?

No just the so called 100 year events every couple of years.

I heard an interesting and sensible explanation of this poorly described event a while ago. It is not, as suggested by the phrase above, an event which occurs once every hundred years (which you are claiming is happening much more frequently than that), but rather, an event which has a 1% chance of occurring.

So many cliches and so little common sense.

 

[explod]

People are tired of the BS - .

Why would one bother with begonia language like that.

And there is no real proof but there is a vibe that something in our planet is amiss and we need to take it seriously just in case even if it does initially cost.

And Julia your directed and cutting words, now a number of times, do upset me, had felt you were a real Lady but sadly dissappointed.

We are merely having a discussion, for Goodness sake.

 

[trainspotter]

But Wayne, this is a revolution.....think about it...."green" supermarkets will start selling 1.25lt bottles of CO2...just imagine on a cold but sunny day, you could purchase a small bottle of CO2 and give each sunny room in your house a squirt of gas and watch your house temp rise 6 or more degrees. The savings on power bills would be huge.

I have just found a new business model that will leap me into the stratosphere of $$$

WOW !!!!!!! Ingenious ...... why didn't I think of it before?? House is cold, squirt some CO2 into the North facing rooms, let the sun do the rest and VIOLA !!!!! Instant internal heating !!

 

[Julia]

And there is no real proof but there is a vibe that something in our planet is amiss and we need to take it seriously just in case even if it does initially cost.

But, explod, what you're omitting to consider is the potential damage to our economy and to the lives of ordinary Australians by taking action that is not expected to actually make any difference to the climate, especially when much of the rest of the world has declined to do likewise. Your apparent refusal to consider this is, to me, very frustrating.

And Julia your directed and cutting words, now a number of times, do upset me, had felt you were a real Lady but sadly dissappointed.

Well I'm sorry to so disappoint you, explod. But I cannot agree with you just in order to allow you to think I'm nice, or a 'lady' or something.

I'm not directing any of my comments to you in any personal sense, but simply disagreeing with much of what you're putting forward, on the basis that much of it is naive and unrealistic. That doesn't mean I don't still think you're a warm and fuzzy bloke.

We are merely having a discussion, for Goodness sake.

Quite so, dear explod.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

And there is no real proof but there is a vibe that something in our planet is amiss and we need to take it seriously just in case even if it does initially cost.

And there we have it, no real proof, but explod has a vibe that says we should all pay a tax that won't actually change anything. Now you can see why the alarmist have lost the debate. Perhaps explod is really al gore trying to reap from the middle class to pour into the trough of the elite.

I doubt there's anything else you could say in this thread, your illogical and clearly bias views have you in an immovable corner.

Btw - what are you personally doing? Still have a car, use power in your home etc etc. Yep thought so.

 

[ghotib]

I heard an interesting and sensible explanation of this poorly described event a while ago. It is not, as suggested by the phrase above, an event which occurs once every hundred years (which you are claiming is happening much more frequently than that), but rather, an event which has a 1% chance of occurring.

So many cliches and so little common sense.

So many assertions and so little checking. According to Wikipedia, a one in a hundred year event has a 1% chance of being exceeded in any year, which is equivalent to saying that over a long enough period it occurs (more correctly, is expected to occur - we're talking statistics and probability) on average once every hundred years. The Met Bureau has a nice discussion in Why Do 100 Year Events Happen So Often?

Weather Underground's Jeff Masters has just posted an overview of extreme weather events in 2010 and the first part of 2011. It might suggest why many sensible and knowledgeable people believe there is good reason to be alarmed about the changing state of the climate. From the introduction:

Every year extraordinary weather events rock the Earth. Records that have stood centuries are broken. Great floods, droughts, and storms affect millions of people, and truly exceptional weather events unprecedented in human history may occur. But the wild roller-coaster ride of incredible weather events during 2010, in my mind, makes that year the planet's most extraordinary year for extreme weather since reliable global upper-air data began in the late 1940s. Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen.

 

[wayneL]

Weather Underground's Jeff Masters has just posted an overview of extreme weather events in 2010 and the first part of 2011. It might suggest why many sensible and knowledgeable people believe there is good reason to be alarmed about the changing state of the climate. From the introduction:

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/03/recent-weather-extremes-fingerprint-not/

 

[wayneL]

More totalitarian "shut up the 'deniers'" rhetoric from the alarmists.

“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.

 

[wayneL]

FYI

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/...ficantly-below-ipcc-climate-model-predic.html

As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.

 

[Ruby]

Ruby,

It would be helpful if you would provide citations for your statements.

Thank you.

Ghoti

Which one? The one about water vapour? There are plenty scattered throughout this thread, but here is one.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Below is an excerpt from that link (with apologies - the table didn't copy properly!) I know that Wiki is not the best source of information, but I think it will give you an answer to that particular question. Please come back to me if I haven't answered your question.

The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eighty times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,[8] but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[9]

Gas
Formula
Contribution
(%)
Water vapor H2O 36 – 72 %
Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26 %
Methane CH4 4 – 9 %
Ozone O3 3 – 7 %

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[9][10] The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases.[9][10]