F1technical.net

Could have counted on that answer Andres. Financially suffering for someone else's benefit is a hurt. Especially when you're on a limited fixed income.

in 2008 the UK unilaterally legally compelled itself to reduce carbon emission by 80% by 2050
matched by the EU commitment but that is conditional on action by other developed countries

the UK has already passed its 2020 target of 37% and now has passed 42% - the EU target for 2020 is 20%
the EU position benefits by incorporation of the UK position - won't the EU position fall back if the UK leaves the EU ?

Andres, you seem worried that the climate is changing. You are aware that it has always changed? Sadly we don't have much data before 1880, but there are exceptions.

Here's the temperature in central England, for the last 400 years. Notice how the temperature does all sorts of strange things before 1850?



If you were born in 1680, by the time you were 50 you'd be saying "Ooo ar, damn it be getting hot these days, not like when I were a lad", and you'd be right. There's a lot that the climate scientists don't understand, and I suspect CO2 is actually not that big a part of it.

Here's the original data set, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Oh, and something else to think about. Here's the temperatures over the last half a million years according to ice cores from the Antarctic. As you can see the interglacials (the warm bits) are fairly brief and tend to run about +2 degree C from whatever they used as a baseline . We are the data on the left, a bit colder than usual, and perhaps rather more exciting, the current interglacial seems to be bit longer than usual, so perhaps we'll be seeing polar bears in Scotland but not in a zoo rather soon.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 09:03

Andres, you seem worried that the climate is changing. You are aware that it has always changed? Sadly we don't have much data before 1880, but there are exceptions.

Here's the temperature in central England, for the last 400 years. Notice how the temperature does all sorts of strange things before 1850?

https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com ... -rm120.png

If you were born in 1680, by the time you were 50 you'd be saying "Ooo ar, damn it be getting hot these days, not like when I were a lad", and you'd be right. There's a lot that the climate scientists don't understand, and I suspect CO2 is actually not that big a part of it.

Here's the original data set, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Wait a minute.....

You really don´t see an obvious increase in the curve for last century?

There have always been fluctuations, but if you draw an average line taking last 50 years, it will be more or less a flat line, until industrial revolution when it start increasing and has been increasing hardly each decade since

It is obvious Greg

That is not the point. The point is that the climate has always changed, in similar ways to now, without man made CO2.

Yes, it has gone up a bit lately, but if you can't explain 1680-1720 then why should I believe you about more recent changes?

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 10:27

That is not the point. The point is that the climate has always changed, in similar ways to now, without man made CO2.

Yes, it has gone up a bit lately, but if you can't explain 1680-1720 then why should I believe you about more recent changes?

There have always been natural variations as you point out. So the question is really what effect does increasing CO2 levels “unnaturally” have? By effect I mean on the well-being of humans; as a species we seem not to care about anything else.

So does increased CO2 make worse, make better or do nothing to the natural change in terms of human comfort?

My feeling is that it’s unlikely to do nothing, and that there are more worse effects than improvements and so we should look to reduce the effect we are augmenting.

95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour (which is about 30000 ppm of the atmosphere)
water vapour ppm and cloud cover increases strongly with temperature so may stabilise more than CO2 destabilises
ie CO2 release from warmer oceans makes CO2 ppm follow temperature not drive it
(and CO2 levels already approach saturation - beyond this no greater CO2 greenhousing is possible)

50 years ago the 'experts' told us that a manmade ice age was possible - and ice age experts still say this is the big dog
(having found by accident abundant evidence that mini ice ages (Heinrich events) were frequent and recent)

the warmists falsify the temperature data (by migrating to new favourable sites and so destroying continuity)
<loaded expressions removed>
NOTE - here the moderator removed my point that warmist misrepresentation doesn't mean there's not warming

the UK can cut its throat going to 80% reduction by 2050 (or 100% if Labour gets to govern)
we may even become a carbon absorber
but what matters is what the very large rest of the world does not what the very small UK does

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 13:06

ie CO2 release from warmer oceans makes CO2 ppm follow temperature not drive it

Now that you raise ocean CO2. Around 30% of the man made CO2 released has been absorbed by the the oceans reducing their ph and offering us a chance to study the effect on mankind of large scale of increased ocean acidity. Results suggest that it has a significant effect on marine life, the effects on us we are yet to fully appreciate.

As driving, if CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, no matter it’s size, might oceans releasing CO2 be a cause of positive feedback rather than simple following?

the idea is the negative feedback by increased cloud formation is greater than your CO2 positive feedback
so stabilising the temperature - this may be the reason life had time to evolve to the present advanced level
the net effect amounting to temperature driving CO2 level not CO2 level driving temperature

btw&iirc
the UK went to 80% reduction because the-man-who-imagined-himself-president Blair wanted to beat Germany's offer
bloody Blair thought he'd volunteered an 80% reduction in electrical-energy CO2 but it was 80% of all-energy CO2
that's why the EU has made its matching 80% by 2050 offer conditional on equivalence by all developed countries
- which other countries have already reduced their actual all-energy CO2 emission rate by 42% ?

So under the negative feedback scenario the temperature won’t rise, the CO2 will continue to be absorbed by the oceans and acidity will continue to rise*. Not sure that’s good news for marine life.

Also it’s to be hoped that the increased cloud cover doesn’t constrain crop production more than the prophesied, albeit not by everyone, rise in crop production due to plants enjoyment of the extra CO2. And it’s also to be hoped that those clouds don’t choose to drop their contents in places where people already have a considerable surfeit.

*at current rates of release we are on course to see pH under 8, last seen some millions of years ago.

henry, are you aware that we live in a rather unusual climate/co2 state for the Earth?

Historically CO2 levels (and average global temperatures) were much higher than today, the Cretaceous being a particular example.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_ge ... scale.html for an overview.

Now, marine animals like plesiosaurs and other such fun things coped quite happily with those CO2 levels.

@Tommy & Greg
You can't make any headway. Been there done that.
They won't listen to facts because they heard otherwise on TV.
Statements like "the facts are in" and "the science is proven" win the day for them.
The same as people who believed the world was flat or that earth was the center of the universe.
Back then those claims were backed by the same type of statements.
They won't even listen after hearing the facts of Climate Gate. I showed quotes from the mouths of those making these proclamations that they lied and manipulated the facts to support Global warming and that when the claims did not prove out they pivoted to climate change.
Facts just don't seem to matter.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

05 Oct 2018, 10:27

That is not the point. The point is that the climate has always changed, in similar ways to now, without man made CO2.

Yes, it has gone up a bit lately, but if you can't explain 1680-1720 then why should I believe you about more recent changes?

You don´t need to believe me, just take a look to the graph you posted yourself