Err.. I've heard of that. And you do realise that the EU's signed up for it? And added to it? And so did Ed's Climate Change Act, the most expensive bit of legislation in the UK's history? And vast sections of the world haven't signed up to Kyoto either, ie only the Annex 1 nations that have signed & ratified have committed to doing anything. And some nations, like Canada have left. And big polluters like the US haven't signed.

And then of course there's the Paris Agreement.. which adds even more cost.

Ah, silly you, you forget to explain how the earth's outgoing cooler radiation somehow magically moved to the shorter wavelength radiation the atmosphere tends to pass through more.

Possibly because you know you're wrong.

I think you put the wrong link in. I can't see anything there about misrepresenting costs.

Or is that more of your Alt-Reich fakery?

Hmm? But according to you & nlp, smaller amounts of CO2 produced greater amounts of warming.. That log thing again. Otherwise the 'how' is basic thermodynamics and the atmosphere passes through less, what with CO2 and H2O's absorption points mostly overlapping. Leaving a teeny window for CO2's magical effects.

Which neither you nor nlp have ever seemed able to quantify.


Nope. The Bbc in it's typical gushing advertorial mode. Praise the renewables! Don't look at the price tag..

Why not remind us where we said that? Might it be because you;re having to lie again, not being able to argue against what we actually said?

Well, you were the one who told us we'd need a 700 million dollar satellite, even though you cleverly showed us that the one you pointed us to us to didn't so what you said it did.

So who's misrepresenting the costs? Or was that just more of your Alt-Reich talk?

Thanks for confirming that you still can't understand schoolboy logarithms. And that all sufficiently difficult science looks like magic to the uneducated.

But have you managed to find another crackpot to agree with your theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" yet? Or are you still all alone on the outermost fringes of the pseudoscience wilderness?

I have been.. repeatedly. Yet neither you nor nlp can quantify the effects of CO2. So there was nlp's 'snowball' theory where 0-275ppmv CO2= 22C or more warming.. Based on 'logarithms', rather than physics. Hence the homeopathic approach. Fewer molecules, much greater warming.. But no physical basis to explain it.


It does do what I (and luckily, NASA) said it does. One orbiting spectromter and a filter tuned to CO2's absorption points, hence it's ability to detect CO2.


Errrm.. You do realise the Reich was Green, don't you? Anyways, if we save £65bn by ditching the CCA and most renewables.. Combined with the €200bn the ECB owes us, we'll be able to build 20GW or so of low carbon, baseload nuclear.

If we bought French reactors using the ECB debt, the transaction could be completed with vaguely funny money. Cashing that in would somewhat crash the euro, but flock'em if they can't take a joke..

I'm with CO2 on that one. It doesn't understand that it's meant to be behaving logarithmically either. So... if 270-540ppmv=2.1C, 0-269ppmv= ?


Only crackpots would deny CO2's omnidirectional nature. Only crackpots think there's no effect during the day. Just to confirm which you are, are you still insisting there's no solar energy matching any of CO2's absorption points?

No, you've never shown where either of us said " smaller amounts of CO2 produced greater amounts of warming" because, as you can't argue what we've said you make your own stuff up.

I can only repeat:


Lying again. Science says 275ppmv will give over 20C of warming.

You are just assembling your own words at random now. I would suggest you try arguing the points that have actually been made but you never can.

What you and NASA say are rarely the same.

Funny how science doesn't agree with your financial wizadry.

Yes, it does understand it's meant to be behaving logarithmically, more than you understand logarithms. So doubling from 270 to 540 is around 3 degrees and halving from 270 to 135 would be around 3 degrees, ignoring feedbacks.

No it's not you numpty.

Don't you understand anything about physics?

If the Earth was a perfect blackbody, it would raise its temperature by approx 1.0C for every doubling of CO2.

It is the completely unproven positive feedback's postulated by the alarmists that gives a figure of 3.25C for a doubling.

No evidence for this other than the models, that have so many free parameters you could prove anything.

The Earths temperature history, with it remaining in a pretty narrow band for well over a billion years, suggests that feedback's actually are negative in both directions in the long term.

if feedback's were positive in any direction the result would be, in the long term, to drive the Earth well out of the narrow band we have observed.



Maggie

CO2 doesn't have to "understand" that it's meant to be behaving logarithmically, any more than a falling ball has to understand that it's meant to be accelerating. That's just what the physics dictates. For some bizarre reason, you have always thought that the logarithmic response is a mathematical fiction, and only applies over a tiny range of CO2 levels. Although quite why you think the fiction applies in only one direction, even within that tiny range, is a mystery I fear we are never going to resolve!


Only a congenital liar would continue to insist that this is what people who accept mainstream science think, even though the lie is pointed out to them every single time they make it. And only a crackpot would claim that "CO2 prevents warming during the day", because that claim is utter nonsense.

Feedbacks which arise quite naturally from a consideration of the physics you deny.


Two lies in one sentence. Have you been taking lessons from the Eel?


Needless to say, they suggest no such thing - unless by "long term", you simply mean the negative feedback which prevents a temperature excursion in either direction continuing indefinitely. But since that is just mainstream science, which you deny, I assume this isn't what you mean.


I think it would be helpful if you gave us your definition of "narrow". Or is your argument now that any temperature previously seen on Earth would be perfectly satisfactory if translated to the present day?

Just a refusal to address the facts. Just parroting stuff without critical thinking.

The response of an Earth with a neutral response to an increase in radiative forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2, would be to see its temperature rise by approx 1.0C.
That is unarguable physics.

There is no proof of there being a net effect of positive feedback's in response to an increase in radiative forcings. The models have free parameters and that is a fact. They quite often use different figures for things like the effect of Black Carbon aerosols etc. These feedback's are adjusted within models to produce their output.

There is evidence that there is no net positive feedback from an increase in radiative forcing. The Sun has increased its radiative forcing on the Earth by about the equivalent of five doublings of CO2 in the last 500 million years. Even taking into account a concurrent fall in atmospheric CO2 in that time, it still leaves a significant net increase in forcing on the Earth.

The response of the Earth has been to cool by about 8.0C in this time.

How can the Earth have net positive feedback's in the face of these facts?



Maggie

As soon as I see you displaying any "critical thinking", rather than simply demonstrating your ignorance of physics, I'll be sure to let you know. I might even throw a party.


The physics is "unarguable" only if you perversely ignore most of the physics. Science deniers can never make up their minds if water vapour is very important or completely unimportant. I see you fall into the latter camp.

The rest of your post is unsubstantiated drivel, as usual.

So answer the question. 0-269ppmv CO2 = how much warming?


So you've confirmed your belief that CO2 behaves unidirectionally, and has no effect on incoming solar energy. That's... not entirely in agreement with mainstream science.

But I also appear to have underestimated the cost-

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...te-change-act/

London, 11 December: A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals the extraordinary £319 billion cost of Britain’s Climate Change Act.

The report, which is based entirely on official figures, exposes the mischievous attempts by ministers to try and disguise the true cost to households.

“Britain has been gulled by false assurances that decarbonising our economy would be costless into signing up to a stupendous bill of over £300 billion up to 2030,” said Peter Lilley MP, the study’s author and one of the few Members of Parliament who voted against the Act back in 2008.

I suppose if you're someone like, say Ed Davey, who left DECC to go work for a 'renewables' company, that £319bn is very appealing.

Hmm.. something we possibly agree on. Sceptics thing water vapor is hugely important given it dominates CO2. Science deniers downplay it because water taxes aren't anywhere near as lucrative as carbon taxes.

Depends where you are on the range rather. 270ppmv is about 30 degrees warming.

That's funny, I'm sure I remember njp and I explaining that the effect of CO2 on the incoming shorter wave radiation was very small but not none.

But that would mean you're lying.

Again.

Ah, that would be the Peter Lilley who was a director of Tethys Petroleum.

I suppose we'll have to agree to differ.
I see some of yourr points but I think iit's a little early to write off a whole technology.

Yes of course so there is no point taking it out.

Interesting conspiracy theory, much favoured by the alt-right, I'm sure. Though quite how a tax on water vapour would a) be implemented or b) be in any way useful is a mystery second only to your unidirectional logarithms.

No, I've confirmed that you are a congenital liar who wouldn't recognise mainstream science if it walked up to you and gave you its telephone number.

What are you talking about?

Just posting random sort of things as if anyone with more than two brain cells would be impressed by them. You obfuscate because you have no answers other than your usual unthinking parroting.

Oh and of course water vapour is important it is a much more important and powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Perhaps we should ban it!

I say again there is no evidence that the Earth has net positive feedback's to an increase in radiative forcing. You have models but they are not evidence of anything as they get to play around with the free parameters.

I mentioned Black Carbon for a good reason. The modellers assign all sorts of quantitative effects in their models because the actual net effect is not measured and is unknown.


" more recent direct radiative forcing estimatewould lead one to conclude that black carbon has contributed the second largest globally averaged radiative forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the radiative forcing of black carbon is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing"

The IPCC use an estimate of 0.3 Watts per square meter. Other scientists have estimates of 1.2 W/m2. Only a 400% difference then! Good job the science is settled!

What do the modellers use?.............................. Anything they damn like is the answer, nobody knows what the true position is and therefore figures can't be challenged.

A scholarly paper on black Carbon states this as the current position.



"Abstract

Black carbon (BC) from the burning of fossil fuel and biomass absorbs solar radiation and might intensify the greenhouse gas warming. Therefore, ideas to combat climate warming by reducing black carbon emissions emerged. However, black carbon emissions are generally accompanied by co-emission of other aerosols that predominantly scatter and have a cooling effect, so that the net forcing is substantially smaller, reducing mitigation potentials. Moreover, indirect effects on clouds are likely to exert additional cooling. As in situ measurements do not sufficiently sample the global atmosphere and satellite data does not provide the necessary detail on aerosol absorption, our only tools to estimate the effect of mitigation are numerical climate models. A review of current model estimates of black carbon radiative effects gives an average estimate of the direct radiative forcing as +0.33 W/m2, indirect effects of −0.11 W/m2 and through BC deposition on snow/ice surfaces of about +0.05 W/m2. A key limitation of these estimates is that the numerical models required for their global quantification are insufficiently constrained by observations. In addition, the comparison of instantaneous forcings generally overestimates the relative importance of black carbon and policy makers should consider alternative metrics, incorporating time-horizons."


You know what that adds up to when you reduce the language down? "We have no measurements, no observations and no proof whether the net effect is even positive or negative."

The modellers love it though, they can play around with this parameter and the other free parameters to produce the result they like.

People like you then swallow these model outputs as proof of something. It would be laughable if it wasn't causing us to divert huge resources into this matter causing goodness knows how many deaths as the poor enter fuel poverty.



Maggie

No conspiracy theory, simply politics. So £65-319bn being wasted to try and prevent a temperature increase that can't be measured on a standard Met Office thermometer.


I'd base it on length of coastline to annoy Norway. Carbon is simpler though because that's a tax on pretty much every economic or industrial activity.

Your inane posts, currently...


Oh, right. So you are indeed the type of science denier who simultaneously asserts the over-riding importance of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, whilst apparently being blissfully unaware that the amount of it in the atmosphere is a function of a) availability, b) temperature, and c) the physics of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.


Yes, you say all sorts of things that aren't true.


Because it's the latest thing for science deniers to cling to in their attempts to undermine the need to reduce CO2 emissions, presumably.

Bagsy I do the catering using solar energy. Oops, I can't, it'll be at night. Settle for Ordovician ice cream?