Comments on: A grim warning about the 2°C target – but then what?

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:56:53 +0000

This “science” is fantasy, albeit coming from a highly paid “scientist” who is grant-farming. An appliance of real-world common sense is required.

By: Jiri

Jiri — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:11:53 +0000

You mean the chart on sea level? I don’t know what it is based on but you can hardly compare transition between glacial and interglacial to some hardly detectable small change in heat balance caused by CO2 greenhouse effect. The insolation effect (milankovich cycle) is at least order of magnitude bigger. Also the glacier covering Northern Europe and America are long gone. Greenland is resilient to melting and current sea level observations are reading 1.5mm/y from gauges and 3mm/y from (hard to calibrate – climatologists would know what I mean) satellites.
BTW by my “here we go again” I meant your suggestion to build hundreds of CCS plants every year. However, I’m not against CCS technology. I just think that your justification to build CCS based on climate alarmism is wrong. If we see some negative effect from high CO2 concentration let’s collect CO2 tax and let market decide what to build. So far I can’t see any negative effect of CO2 causing substantial damage.

By: David

David — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:37:50 +0000

Jiri,
I think the “Here we go again” comment is one that is a better fit for your thinking on the issue. The science is really very clear. Sea level is becoming an issue, although very large changes are for the very long term. The reason I included the chart on this was to demonstrate the sensitivity of the global system to small changes in heat balance.
David

By: Jiri

Jiri — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:16:13 +0000

Here we go again. David is lobying for 100 new big CCS startig up every year. This means big $$$. He compares the effort to the current scramble for energy (in China). However, the new coal plant produce power. New CCS consumes energy. You say if we won’t build it we will fry or flood. I guess it is not only a job for you. You really believe it do you?

By: Jiri

Jiri — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:06:17 +0000

Where is the science David? Do you really believe that the sea level is a significant factor here? Or that the chimerical positive water vapour feedback will fry us? You are stuck with hockey stick thinking assuming that Mother Nature loves keeping things nice and stable – and dead. It is a grim look at the state of the current state of climate science. But, we have a hope. Communist ideology also looked invincible based on scientific appearance of Karl Marx’s work.
Fortunately, political climate alarmism appears to be much less successful ideology than communism.