What can't speak can't lie.
CO2 level nearly double its average for last 800,000 years; CH4 level nearly quadruple. Those are the two main ''greenhouse gases" which could be attributed to human activity.
Click on pictures to see source:
Given that the levels of CO2 and CH4 have gone through the roof, can somebody please explain to me why global temperatures are pretty much in the middle of the range they've been in for the past few thousand years..?
Monday, 18 February 2019
Greenhouse gas levels through the roof, and..?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
That's nothing. What about the early 20th century warm period to name one anomaly of many which get discounted by the IPCC. See Judith Curry's courageous work.
Climate change is happening fo sure. What's not in the least bit certain is:
1) how much is anthropogenic
2) thus what effect anthropogenic contributions will have
I've tried asking this question to leading climate change priests recently, one at Cambridge. It's like suggesting a Christian consider the possibility that Judas was actually conspiring with Christ rather than betraying him.
Very very strange indeed. This thing we call science.
Part of the reason is logarithmic forcing. Each doubling of CO2 causes a fixed increase in temperature.
JJ, the logarithmic effect is obvious to all except the Global Warmenist Believers, who claim there will be a runaway, accelerating effect.
I personally suspect that it's even less than logarithmic. It's like blankets. Beyond a certain number, adding an extra blanket will not keep you any warmer.
Mark Wadsworth ,
If CO2 levels increase adsorption of U.V. , then once 100% of the solar radiation of the requisite wavelength is captured and not reflected , then further radiation definitely can't be captured .
As I understand it , dependent upon their surface temperature , surfaces can only adsorp radiation above a certain wavelength .
Supposedly only cold parts of earth can adsorp the wavelength they are talking about .
It's easy to be put off the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis when they make ridiculous claims about being able to measure the "average temperature of the atmosphere" , let alone claim to be able to compare this to a supposed measurement 300 years ago .
Junk maths for sure and the reason so many physicists (the science of measuring) are put off .
That is what happens when you want a particular answer to support your narrative and you flood the field with vast amounts of untracked money .
"the logarithmic effect is obvious to all except the Global Warmenist Believers, who claim there will be a runaway, accelerating effect."
The logarithmic effect is also theoretically justified, so it's what you'd expect without the data. The runaway feedback predictions are based on a variety of ideas, including methane being released from the oceans above a certain temperature. These are not borne out by the evidence so far!
Because the main driver of our climate, that of Venus and that of Mars is the sun. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas anyway. Nowhere near as powerful w
as water vapour (which is not a gas of course). No sunspots at present though.
Str, " once 100% of the solar radiation of the requisite wavelength is captured and not reflected , then further radiation definitely can't be captured"
Exactly, that's my blanket analogy.
JJ, "These are not borne out by the evidence so far!"
That's my problem here, neither logic not evidence suggests global warming is happening or will happen.
DrE, that's how Piers Corbyn predicts weather, so far he is winning hands down.
Post a Comment