Comments on: A simple choice – 4°C or a carbon price

By: Jiri

Jiri — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:45:39 +0000

David is not in the fossil fuel industry. He is in the carbon industry. You might not have realized the difference.

By: Paul Magnus

Paul Magnus — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:56:01 +0000

Thank you for your measured comment on this issue. You are certainly right. It is good to see that cooperations, even those in the fossil fuel industries, are realizing that the warming world will lead to economic disaster.

It is unfortunate that it took this angle to sture you people in to sitting up. Especially since it is not just the economy that is threatened, but our species and the very life soul of the planet.

Good speed and good luck.

By: Jiri

Jiri — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:40:23 +0000

Alec, your link appears not to work for me. I have one simple test for you. Can you explain existence of tropopause without IR absorption/emission? Geenhouse effect explain its existence quite well so I wonder if your explanation could be better.

By: David

David — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:08:32 +0000

Alec,
You are of course welcome to your view on the physics and it may well be the case that some meteorologists don’t study physics to the necessary depth, but lots of physicists and atmospheric chemists do. I think we would be wise to listen to them and foolish to dismiss their understanding of the subject and the behaviour of IR in the atmosphere.
David

By: AlecM

AlecM — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:50:24 +0000

Sorry to rain on your party, but I put this onto the DECC web site today: http://blog.decc.gov.uk/2012/11/22/using-wood-for-bioenergy/#comment-58080

‘My Dear Bernie, as you have a scientific training you should know there can be no CO2-AGW. The ~100 m IR emission/absorption depth of the atmosphere is within 1 deg of the Earth’s surface so its thermal IR, near enough black body, switches off IR in those same bands at the surface apart from a few water vapour sidebands.

No IR absorption, no ‘GHG blanket’, no CO2-AGW. This is basic radiation physics. Unfortunately, meteorologists like Trenberth are taught incorrect physics and imagine ‘pyrgeometers’, IR pyrometers, measure a real energy flux, not a temperature signal. So, the models exaggerate warming by ~6.8x.

Please tell the loonies at DECC there can be no CO2 climate change, the Earth is cooling as the sun’s magnetic field heads below 1500 Gauss and cloud cover increases and we should be planning for ice blocking the Northern ports from ~2020. This has been the biggest scientific and commercial fraud in history and DECC is at the heart of it.’

This physics, missed by Trenberth, is absolute.

By: Ed Reid

Ed Reid — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:08:22 +0000

No. It is not a simple choice. First, 4oC is a projection, based on multiple models which have demonstrated limited skill in forcasting. Second, it is almost certain that any carbon price which might be chosen would be wrong, in that it would not achieve the desired reduction in carbon emissions.

“Predictions are very hard, especially about the future.”. Yogi Berra, American philiosopher

By: Jiri

Jiri — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:23:55 +0000

The study from WB is ridiculous. They really succeeded to shock me to laugh. E.g. they claim that if we continue to release the bad CO2 the world can warm by 4C by 2060. It means whooping 0.8C/decade. Even the most alarming temperature series are unable to squeeze out more warming than 0.18C/decade over the last two decades. It is not a surprise because the last decade temperature hasn’t risen at all. I guess they should scale back a little bit in alarmism. Even IPCC wasn’t as funny reading and even politicians might start to realise that. After all climate is our least worry when trying to recover economy from the green energy.

By: Jiri

Jiri — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:32:15 +0000

There is one easy way how to debunk this alarms. The Earth temperature was similar (or even warmer) in Holocene compared to the present while CO2 levels were flat. This is the inconvinient truth which immediatelly destroys all alarmist nonsense. Forget icehockey nonsense IPCC and carbon lobyists are recycling. You surely know the story about Viking settlements of Greenland but there is yet another example: Reindeer living at Franz Josef Land in Artics. http://hol.sagepub.com/content/10/6/763.abstract
While Reindeer 1300 years ago lived quite hapilly at this remote Arctic location they extinct due to the Little Ice Age striking in the last millenia. Strange coincidence with Viking settlements and many proxies which are being sucesfully ignored by IPCC so called scientists.
This indicates that recovery from the Little Ice Age is into large extend natural phenomenon and CO2 (including water vapour feedback) has much lower impact than IPCC failed models show.
This makes your fairy tale global warming funny if it wouldn’t ask to transfer trilions from common people into the carbon market.