On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 at 11:53:06 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:27, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:

In a recent BBC R4 news programme, it was claimed that CO2 levels are
higher now than than at any time in the last 3 million years. What was
not said was that the planet has for a significant part of that time
span swung in cycles of 100,000 years from being an ice-ball for 80,000
years and a desert for 20,000 years. At the present time we are about
half-way through a warm part of the cycle. So why is there all this
concern about CO2?

Nonsense! We have been cooling for the last 6000 years. We were heading for a new glacial period, but now we are heading for the climate of the Pliocene when sea levels were 25 m higher and CO2 was at 400 ppm.

Just can't trust the BBC....

If CO2 continues to increase at the current rate of 3 ppm per year, then by 2100 CO2 will be at about 600 ppm and all the ice sheets will have gone leading to a sea level rise of 65 m, with a climate to match.
How much of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Liverpool, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Newcastle, Hull, or Cambridge at 5 m asl will be left after that?

When the temperature falls, there is little help from CO2 levels
remaining high, so what do you propose as the mechanism for your claimed
halt of the temperature drop that you mentioned?

My science does not come from the BBC.
I merely quoted what the BBC said, and asked a question based on what
they didn't say in their news item.
The BBC was just making one point - that CO2 levels are now where they were before the Pleistocene period began 3,000,000 years ago. Then the level dropped below 400 ppm and this ice age began. The ice age consists of glacial periods and interglacial, driven by the Milankovitch. Cycles in the Earth’s orbit. So the climate is not just affected by CO2. It is also affected other things such as solar radiation and water vapour.

Currently we are living in the Holocene interglacial which peaked 6000 years ago.
It comes from the scientific literature, e.g. https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../6124/1198.ppt Which blog do you get yours from?
"Access Denied. You are not authorized (sic) to access this page"

Try this http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png from the same paper

More nonsense. When the temperature drops water vapour decreases and CO2 becomes the main greenhouse gas.
So we should be worried about water vapour rather than CO2. At what
level of water vapour does the crossover take place? How does that
relate to temperature?

At 0C water vapour is insignificant. So over the ice sheets CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. That is why the Arctic is warming three times faster than elsewhere. Gehenna the sea ice melts water vapour will take over and the NH warm even faster!

On Monday, 14 September 2020 17:21:54 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 11:28:45 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 08:28, Graham Easterling wrote:

it's been allowed to continue. It was always going to be difficult to get Countries to reduce carbon emissions. The economic crash of 2008 made an attempt but of course, governments were having none of that. Important steps were taken to boost car production & get CO2 emissions back on track.
In a recent BBC R4 news programme, it was claimed that CO2 levels are
higher now than than at any time in the last 3 million years. What was
not said was that the planet has for a significant part of that time
span swung in cycles of 100,000 years from being an ice-ball for 80,000
years and a desert for 20,000 years. At the present time we are about
half-way through a warm part of the cycle. So why is there all this
concern about CO2?

Nonsense! We have been cooling for the last 6000 years. We were heading for a new glacial period, but now we are heading for the climate of the Pliocene when sea levels were 25 m higher and CO2 was at 400 ppm. If CO2 continues to increase at the current rate of 3 ppm per year, then by 2100 CO2 will be at about 600 ppm and all the ice sheets will have gone leading to a sea level rise of 65 m, with a climate to match.
How much of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Liverpool, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Newcastle, Hull, or Cambridge at 5 m asl will be left after that?

I'm afraid this attitude is a large part of the problem. I nearly threw something at the TV when Trump opened his mouth, the sooner he's gone the better we all will be...

Yes the planet will survive until the supernova, but the human race is pressing the self destruct button in many ways and it's getting worse by the day...

Keith (Southend)

On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 10:04:51 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 16:21, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 11:28:45 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 08:28, Graham Easterling wrote:

it's been allowed to continue. It was always going to be difficult to get Countries to reduce carbon emissions. The economic crash of 2008 made an attempt but of course, governments were having none of that. Important steps were taken to boost car production & get CO2 emissions back on track.

In a recent BBC R4 news programme, it was claimed that CO2 levels are
higher now than than at any time in the last 3 million years. What was
not said was that the planet has for a significant part of that time
span swung in cycles of 100,000 years from being an ice-ball for 80,000
years and a desert for 20,000 years. At the present time we are about
half-way through a warm part of the cycle. So why is there all this
concern about CO2?

Nonsense! We have been cooling for the last 6000 years. We were heading for a new glacial period, but now we are heading for the climate of the Pliocene when sea levels were 25 m higher and CO2 was at 400 ppm.

Just can't trust the BBC....

If CO2 continues to increase at the current rate of 3 ppm per year, then by 2100 CO2 will be at about 600 ppm and all the ice sheets will have gone leading to a sea level rise of 65 m, with a climate to match.
How much of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Liverpool, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Newcastle, Hull, or Cambridge at 5 m asl will be left after that?

When the temperature falls, there is little help from CO2 levels
remaining high, so what do you propose as the mechanism for your claimed
halt of the temperature drop that you mentioned?

--
Spike

I won't hold my breath waiting for the global temperature fall, it's supposed to be soon with the next sunspot cycle. The current La Nina's not having much effect, but the next El Niño will be interesting.

Keith (Southend)

On 15/09/2020 20:31, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 17:21:54 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 11:28:45 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 08:28, Graham Easterling wrote:

it's been allowed to continue. It was always going to be difficult to get Countries to reduce carbon emissions. The economic crash of 2008 made an attempt but of course, governments were having none of that. Important steps were taken to boost car production & get CO2 emissions back on track.
In a recent BBC R4 news programme, it was claimed that CO2 levels are
higher now than than at any time in the last 3 million years. What was
not said was that the planet has for a significant part of that time
span swung in cycles of 100,000 years from being an ice-ball for 80,000
years and a desert for 20,000 years. At the present time we are about
half-way through a warm part of the cycle. So why is there all this
concern about CO2?

Nonsense! We have been cooling for the last 6000 years. We were heading for a new glacial period, but now we are heading for the climate of the Pliocene when sea levels were 25 m higher and CO2 was at 400 ppm. If CO2 continues to increase at the current rate of 3 ppm per year, then by 2100 CO2 will be at about 600 ppm and all the ice sheets will have gone leading to a sea level rise of 65 m, with a climate to match.
How much of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Liverpool, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Newcastle, Hull, or Cambridge at 5 m asl will be left after that?

I'm afraid this attitude is a large part of the problem. I nearly threw something at the TV when Trump opened his mouth, the sooner he's gone the better we all will be...

Yes the planet will survive until the supernova, but the human race is pressing the self destruct button in many ways and it's getting worse by the day...

Keith (Southend)

The real problem in Brazil is the president whose avowed agenda is to
eliminate all the indigenous population, eliminate the rain forest to
grow GM Soy to feed the cattle they will also be farming on that land to
supply the likes of McDonalds, he is a Trump clone and very dangerous.
So next time you are thing of going to McDonalds kindly think of the
rain forest and all the people who live there, thanks

--
Martin

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:19:00 PM UTC+1, Martin Smith wrote:
On 15/09/2020 20:31, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 17:21:54 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 11:28:45 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 08:28, Graham Easterling wrote:

it's been allowed to continue. It was always going to be difficult to get Countries to reduce carbon emissions. The economic crash of 2008 made an attempt but of course, governments were having none of that. Important steps were taken to boost car production & get CO2 emissions back on track.
In a recent BBC R4 news programme, it was claimed that CO2 levels are
higher now than than at any time in the last 3 million years. What was
not said was that the planet has for a significant part of that time
span swung in cycles of 100,000 years from being an ice-ball for 80,000
years and a desert for 20,000 years. At the present time we are about
half-way through a warm part of the cycle. So why is there all this
concern about CO2?

Nonsense! We have been cooling for the last 6000 years. We were heading for a new glacial period, but now we are heading for the climate of the Pliocene when sea levels were 25 m higher and CO2 was at 400 ppm. If CO2 continues to increase at the current rate of 3 ppm per year, then by 2100 CO2 will be at about 600 ppm and all the ice sheets will have gone leading to a sea level rise of 65 m, with a climate to match.
How much of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Liverpool, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Newcastle, Hull, or Cambridge at 5 m asl will be left after that?

I'm afraid this attitude is a large part of the problem. I nearly threw something at the TV when Trump opened his mouth, the sooner he's gone the better we all will be...

Yes the planet will survive until the supernova, but the human race is pressing the self destruct button in many ways and it's getting worse by the day...

Keith (Southend)

The real problem in Brazil is the president whose avowed agenda is to
eliminate all the indigenous population, eliminate the rain forest to
grow GM Soy to feed the cattle they will also be farming on that land to
supply the likes of McDonalds, he is a Trump clone and very dangerous.
So next time you are thing of going to McDonalds kindly think of the
rain forest and all the people who live there, thanks

--
Martin

It is pretty sickening the way so many big corporations claim to be going green when they are causing environmental catastrophe. BP are spending a fortune on promoting their 'green' credentials, yet are spending record amounts on oil exploration. They are apparently (their words) “working to make energy cleaner� when more than 96 per cent of BP’s capital expenditure is on oil and gas.

Then electric cars are (apparently) carbon neutral, when in many countries more fossil fuel is burnt generating the electricity that makes them go, than if they were an efficient petrol model. China being a prime example.

The west spends billions of £s each year subsidising projects which make the situation even worse. Locally government subsidies have paid for a highly expensive helicopter link to the millionaire's Island of Tresco, rather than spend the same on a replacement ship to Scilly, which is desperately needed and uses a minute fraction of the CO2 per passenger the helicopters use and provides an essential lifeline. Added to which there is already a fixed wing service to Scilly from Newquay & Lands End which has spare capacity and uses far less CO2 per passenger then the helicopters. Helicopters have there place, but not in a regular passenger service. Still free hols on Tresco for the press if they write the right things etc. helped con the politicians who aren't corrupt.

Nice weather though.

Graham
Penzance

'Spike' is an anonymous climate denier who has to deny any and all evidence that climate change is happening, to generally intelligent and informed people who know full well that it is. Does it every time. Oh well.



On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 12:27:07 PM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 11:01, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 11:35:27 AM UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 11:28:45 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2020 08:28, Graham Easterling wrote:

it's been allowed to continue. It was always going to be difficult to get Countries to reduce carbon emissions. The economic crash of 2008 made an attempt but of course, governments were having none of that. Important steps were taken to boost car production & get CO2 emissions back on track.

In a recent BBC R4 news programme, it was claimed that CO2 levels are
higher now than than at any time in the last 3 million years. What was
not said was that the planet has for a significant part of that time
span swung in cycles of 100,000 years from being an ice-ball for 80,000
years and a desert for 20,000 years. At the present time we are about
half-way through a warm part of the cycle. So why is there all this
concern about CO2?
No one denies that, it is the speed of change that is alarmingly out of control that will screw us up, the planet will survive, but in what form and what will be left?
Indeed.

Spike was selective in the part of my post he quotes. Most of what I said concerned rainforest destruction, which I would have thought most people would be against for a whole host of reasons.
Spike responded to your remark about CO2. With respect, if you didn't
want it followed up, then it might have been better not to mention it.

--
Spike

On 15/09/2020 11:21, Nick Gardner wrote:
On 15 Sep 2020 10:52, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:18, Nick Gardner wrote:

Does CO2 absorb in the infrared? If so, how much?

Which infra-red? There's a whole spectrum of it out there.....

From one scientist to another, answer the question. There's only 1
infra red spectrum.

That's what I said....

How much does CO2 absorb in the infra red. Do I
need to ask again?

With three narrow absorption bands across 1-50 micron spectrum, it isn't
going to be much.

--
Spike

On 15/09/2020 17:49, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 at 11:53:06 UTC+1, Spike wrote:

I merely quoted what the BBC said, and asked a question based on what
they didn't say in their news item.

The BBC was just making one point - that CO2 levels are now where they were before the Pleistocene period began 3,000,000 years ago. Then the level dropped below 400 ppm and this ice age began. The ice age consists of glacial periods and interglacial, driven by the Milankovitch. Cycles in the Earth’s orbit. So the climate is not just affected by CO2. It is also affected other things such as solar radiation and water vapour.

Currently we are living in the Holocene interglacial which peaked 6000 years ago.
It comes from the scientific literature, e.g. https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../6124/1198.ppt Which blog do you get yours from?

Try this http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png from the same paper

Whenever I see 'HadCrut' I think of Clmategate.

More nonsense. When the temperature drops water vapour decreases and CO2 becomes the main greenhouse gas.

So we should be worried about water vapour rather than CO2. At what
level of water vapour does the crossover take place? How does that
relate to temperature?

At 0C water vapour is insignificant. So over the ice sheets CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. That is why the Arctic is warming three times faster than elsewhere. Gehenna the sea ice melts water vapour will take over and the NH warm even faster!

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. Would you care to explain your
thinking?

Gehenna the sea ice melts water vapour will take over and the NH warm even faster!

That doesn't parse very well either.

--
Spike

On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 09:21:00 UTC+1, Spike wrote:

Whenever I see 'HadCrut' I think of Clmategate.

Whenever I see Climategate I think of a scientist suffering from the timewasting tactics of a climate change denier.


More nonsense. When the temperature drops water vapour decreases and CO2 becomes the main greenhouse gas.

So we should be worried about water vapour rather than CO2. At what
level of water vapour does the crossover take place? How does that
relate to temperature?

There is no crossover point. At 0C there is virtually no water vapour (WV) and so the WV greenhouse effec is virtually nil, and the greenhouse effect depends on the CO2 concentration. As the temperature rises the concentration of water vapour increases until its effect overtakes CO2 and eventually it dominates, as it does in the tropics at sea level.

Note we are talking about local surface temperature, not global temperature.. Thus in the tropics, the snow-capped peak of Kilimanjaro is melting primarily because of the effect of increased CO2, not because the region is warming.

At 0C water vapour is insignificant, so over ice sheets CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. That is why the Arctic is warming three times faster than elsewhere. When the Arctic sea ice melts completely water vapour will take over the greenhouse effect and the NH will warm even faster!

Water vapour is part of a positive feedback loop. When the surface temperature rises (because of increased CO2) then more water is evaporated and water vapour increases. This raises the air temperature even further and produces more water vapour. This runaway effect only ends when enough of the water vapour condenses forming clouds which reflect away the incoming solar radiation.

When the Arctic sea ice has melted, water vapour will take over the greenhouse effect and the NH will warm even faster!

To sum it all up, CO2 concentration is not the only thing that affects global temperature. Solar radiation and ithe albedo from ice sheets and clouds play a major role. But the later depend on water vapour which depends on CO2.

HTH, Alastair.

In article ,
says...
At 0C water vapour is insignificant, so over ice sheets CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. That is why the Arctic is warming three times faster than elsewhere. When the Arctic sea ice melts completely water vapour will take over the greenhouse effect and the NH will warm even faster!


Not making sense here. You are saying the Arctic is warming 3 times
faster than elsewhere because there is no WV forcing in the Arctic (it's
all CO2 forcing).

Then you are saying that once there is WV forcing it will warm even
faster.



--
Alan LeHun

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus