From the BBC:
What's really significant, though, is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was very similar [in the Pliocene] to what it is today - at around 400 CO2 molecules for every million molecules of air...
Temperatures may currently be lower than in the Pliocene, but that's only because there is a lag in the system, he says. "If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C, the temperature doesn't get to that level immediately; it takes a bit of time," [Prof Martin Siegert from the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London] told reporters.
"And it's the same with Earth's climate. If you ratchet up the level of CO2 at 400 parts per million (ppm), it won't suddenly get to an equilibrium overnight. It will take maybe 300 years or something. So, the question to us is: what is the equilibrium state; what is Earth's climate going to look like with 400ppm, all things being settled?"
The IPCC report explained that increasing CO2 levels from 0.03% to 0.04% would increase temperatures, because ever so slightly more infra-red will be reflected back to the earth's surface. Well of course temperatures will increase, the question is, by how much? A tiny fraction of a degree or as many as two? They left that open.
However much the increase is, how quickly would we expect this to happen? It is warmer at night when it's cloudy than when the sky is clear, if the cloud cover blows away, you notice the temperature drop within minutes.
So if, hypothetically, C02 levels were to jump from 0.04% to to 0.05% overnight and this actually increased temperatures, you might not expect any related increase in temperatures to happen within minutes or hours, but perhaps within days, or months or even a whole year.
"Three centuries" is taking the piss.
Import the Third World
2 hours ago
17 comments:
You should follow Prof. Judith Curry.
Its interesting to quiz a planet saver on climate change. I've experiment with a professor and others recently. My question is: "please show me clear proof of how much of climate change is anthropogenic".
Amazingly I always get hit back immediately with "oooh a denier". Yet I do not deny climate change is happening. When I politely clarify this I get smoke and mirrors.
The problem, is, there is no clear proof on the level of human contributions to climate change. There's only a consensus among scientists who's job's rely on it being so. Same old.
What makes this reckless is costly policy is already being forced onto the people about what to do about it, when no one knows yet if anything can ben done not to mention what is the biggest cause of it.
It all depends on Climate Sensitivity. (If you don't know what that is, Google it). Climate Change Alarmism depends on Climate Sensitivity being high; that implies a long time lag between a rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and reaching the new equilibrium.
Climate Sensitivity can't be measured directly (conveniently for the Alarmists). Reasonable inferences from Data suggest that Climate Sensitivity is, in fact, quite low; hence, equilibrium following a rise in carbon dioxide is reached quickly.
What do you reckon is root cause of Alarmism?
RS, I'm neither a 'believer' nor a 'sceptic', I'm genuinely interested and so far, none of the Warmenists has put up a convincing case, being full of contradictions. The sceptics, on the whole, seem more plausible.
D, I did Google 'climate sensitivity' and while the overall issues are clear, the detailed calculations involved make my head spin. So I'm going with the sensible assumption that it would happen quite quickly.
RS, because it's easy and self-reinforcing.
MW, yes of course.
My question is asking *why* do we select the easy and self reinforcing?
You know this has been my question for years. All others are superficial, no matter how perfect technically.
RS, I know you have, and it's really tedious. So why don't you just tell us and leave us in peace?
MS, tedious, or a scrutiny which challenges something you wish to remain hidden?
To clarify, I do not know the answer. I'm asking if this forum is willing to look into it scientifically.
Its strange to keep asking about something you know does not suffice, when there's a related unchallenged question staring right at you. Not to go for it is hardly scientific.
Try not to take it so personally. I'm questioning your doctrine and approach, not you as a person. I'm sure you're fine as a person.
RS, the answer is simple. Being intellectually lazy and going with the majority is default behaviour for human beings, and probably all animals. It's as simple as that.
MW, It's simple to you because your'e still answering the superficial question I'm asking you to look beyond. (lazy herd like thinking)
I'm asking why the herd mentality, when a little effort exploring the deeper problem leads to a better result?
Might the intellect be part fo the problem? Nietzsche speaks well to this.
Certainly the intellect is wasted so recklessly when a vested interest or ideology needs protection.
This is quite good on the relationship between master and slave morality - moralism having a sentimental root rather than a real one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
RS, AGW is a pseudo-religion. That's what makes it attractive. People need something to believe in and something that offers them a way to generate their own salvation, like many religions do, is doubly attractive. As G.K.Chesterton said, "when men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything".
For the deeper questions to which you seek an answer I recommend your parish priest/imam/rabbi/guru/pundit/shaman/sensei depending on your choice of religion. Deep down they have all the same answers to the eternal questions.
BAYNARD. Thank you for your considered response.
You're still answering the question you want to be asked. (Begging the question)
My question is why people need to believe in something which is proven to deliver a worse alternative, just because it appears easier and protects them by a tyranny of the majority, when the alternative is actually easier? You know, a kind of religion masquerading as science.
Already MW has written in his own hand above this is his approach too.
The deeper question we're all avoiding and I'm asking about why, has never been attended to by those you suggest in 2000 years in power so I'm curious why you suggest that. Are you being flippant for a bit of fun?
Is that clear and what is your view?
p.s. Google Nietzsche on democracy and Christianity. Hilarious. Suggests democracy is the height of Christian world view, and goes in the direction of my question to you.
B, I disagree with "pseudo religion". All "religions" are pseudo-religions. Even those who believe in one particular one consider all the others to be "pseudo religions". So whichever religion you choose, a vast majority consider it to be a pseudo-religion.
RS "My question is why people need to believe in something which is proven to deliver a worse alternative.."
Delivering a worse alternative is a bug, not a feature.
"Even those who believe in one particular one consider all the others to be "pseudo religions"."
I don't think so, they consider other religions to be religions, just not the truth and therefore wrong. However there is no spirituality in AGW, so although it fills the "God-shaped hole", it isn't a real religion, it just has the trappings of one, the denigration of those who don't believe, the arrogation of what they regard as the truth, the adoption of a personal mission to save humanity, etc.
I find it quite scary that the comments are full of people looking for proof, we've had 20 of the warmest years on record in the last 22 years...
And you people want proof, why not just wait until we are too far gone? to be fair we probably already are to far gone.
What is your problem with acting and not using fossil? we have alternatives, It's obvious we have to act.
Jim,
I refer you to the first comment. 20 years of the warmest years on record* is simply proof that the Earth is getting warmer. It is NOT any sort of proof that any of man's activities are causing this.
Asking for some sort of proof that any of man's activities are causing an increase in global temperatures is no evidence of having a problem with using less fossil fuels, which are a finite resource.
*since the records began in the middle of what even climate scientists acknowledge was a cold period that started in the 1200s and which we are just coming out of, it would be a cause of alarm if the the last twenty years were not the hottest on record. 400 years is but the blink of an eye in the scale of geological time and there is clear historical evidence that at least the UK was a lot warmer a thousand years ago than it is now.
Ditto Bayard. Don't forget the 1920's warming period too... which cooled again. And the science supporting the extent of anthropogenic emissions is merely a consensus. Which is the main thrust of my question - we want facts or at least clear evidence that the sheeple can easily understand and vote on, not an opinion of a vested interest group( the scientists)
Main observation here is there's a hysteria constituting possibly the democratic majority which demands that 'something must be done'. I'd say that's just as big a problem as climate change, even if it is real. Why? Because the ideology is now informing the minds of the majority in spite of the science.
For example, if new evidence arose (which it has) discounting the consensus opinion to some extent, would it get proper scrutiny any more?
Post a Comment