« Boris Johnson talks to BBC1's Andrew Neil about his demand for London to get a fairer share of public spending | Main | Boris Johnson's upbeat new year video »

December 18, 2009

Comments

FaustiesBlog

[Yawn] Yada yada yada

Just another bogus warmist alarmist clone, singing from the globalist hymn sheet.

Tapestry

I can understand how they are working the warmist bogus stance into a general clean-up.

The smell of bus exhausts can go. The noise of vehicles. Fresh food can come in. More exercise on bicycles. save money on fuel bills. Get aircraft out of london's airspace.

All good stuff, and not a word about CO2 and warming needs mentioning. Divert the warming game to good ends. away from bogus science to beneficial economic results.

No problem, and Boris and Dave can float along as if the inventors of environmentalism, without getting too hooked up in the science.

As for Americans handing billions to third world countries to save their forests, well yes. Some of that's a good idea regardless of warming theories.

The world government stuff will need stuffing up its a**e, but from a strong environmental position, that will be much easier.

Mark W

Hallo politicians look out of the window its not getting warmer for the last 3 years its snowed. Stop wasting our taxes!!!!!

Energetic

Boris is right to try to curb pollution but, as Tapestry writes, this is nothing to do with carbon dioxide and saving the Planet so should be decoupled from it.

Tresillian

I respect the view of climate skeptics and I respect your bravery in being openly skeptical in the face opposition. Too often "believers" simply use pejorative slurs and appeals to authority in order to silence, rather than win over, people in this position. This has the effect of raising suspicions and simply serves to divide people and stifle debate.

However I would like to set out why I feel the basic premise of the global warming argument is a settled issue. That basic premise is threefold.

1) That CO2 levels are at least 30% higher than they have been at any other point in the last half a million years.

2)That this is due to man.

3)That rising CO2 levels lead directly to a warming of the global average temperature (of the right sort of scale).


Have CO2 levels increased?
The CO2 levels have been measured both in the atmosphere and for gas trapped in the ICE cores.

The typical graphs looks like this:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/maunaloa.jpg

Is this due to man?
That this recent increase in CO2 is due to man is not in too much doubt (what else could it be) and "climate skeptics" don't normally challenge this. There is very little alternative explanation for the CO2 rises which are numerically consistent with the estimated emissions. (Check this for yourself [the mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion tonnes, the global average emissions is about 5 tonnes per person per year, based on 6 billion people]).

Has this caused warming of the planet?
The CO2 molecule absorbs radiation in and around the 14 micron level (in the infra-red). The "atmospheric transmittance" (which is the chance that a photon of a given wavelength will get through the atmosphere) can be measured and has been measured for years.

This is the sort of graph I mean (but the one I actually used is a different one from which numbers could be read off more easily)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RemoteSensingAtmosphere/Images/windows.gif

Note this is mainly done so that astronomers know what wavelengths to make their telescopes and as such it is not dependent on "climate scientists". The increase in CO2 levels have caused a decrease in opacity around the 14 micron level . Note not at the 14 micron level but either side of it, there was virtually no transmission at 14 microns even when CO2 levels were down at 280ppm.

Emission from earth takes roughly the form of a "black body".

So we can work out the emission and the increase in absorption potability and so get the extra energy that, every second, is being absorbed by the CO2. This extra energy is trapped and the thermal effect is equivalent to an increase in the power of the sun of (very roughly) 0.1%. We know that this would lead to an increase in global temperature of the order of one degree because the power emitted by the earth is proportional to the 4th power of absolute temperature. In equilibrium this must be the the power taken in by the sun (+nuclear core heating) so we can work out what this increase in effective solar power would mean for temperatures. The answer I got when I did this calculation was "about a degree".

A bit of background. I am doing an astronomy PhD, I have no vested interest in climate science. Using only the CO2 data, a graph of atmospheric transmittance and basic undergraduate physics I have confirmed that our emissions should have caused "of the order 1 degree" of global warming. This doesn't rely on any temperature data or any computer modals. Just numbers from 2 graphs which are very much indisputable. I should also point out that the answer gained by this approach is very inaccurate and that is where the computer modals and the climate data come in. What it does convince me of is that it isn't all simply "made up".

So All I'm really saying is that I wanted to make up my own mind and I checked if the data was "plausible" and I found that it was.

I don't intend to persuade you that global warming will lead to exactly 1, 2 or 4 or only 0.2 degrees of heating. I don't intend to persuade you that global warming can be prevented by political agreements and I don't intend to persuade you of what particular levels of human misery will be caused by such heating nor of the effects on sea levels or on the gulf stream or the accelerating effect of albedo decreases.
I have not checked any of these things for myself.

What I do intend to convince you of is that the man made emissions of CO2 leads to heating of the planet and that the sorts of numbers being talked about by our leaders (1 degree, 2 degrees, 4 degrees) are plausible numbers. The later questions can wait till later.

buy viagra

What is low carbon steel used for?

i need answer quick quick quick!!!!!!!! can be anything just make it RIGHT

The comments to this entry are closed.

Homepage

Options

Most Updated

Other Pages

Tracker

  • Extreme Tracking