New evidence on Antarctic warming

gerky

BBC wrote:

New evidence on Antarctic warming
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The continent of Antarctica is warming up in step with the rest of the world, according to a new analysis.

Scientists say data from satellites and weather stations indicate a warming of about 0.6C over the last 50 years.

Writing in the journal Nature, they say the trend is "difficult to explain" without the effect of rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, scientists in Antarctica say a major ice shelf is about to break away from the continent.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is said to be "hanging by a thread" from the Antarctic Peninsula, the strip of land pointing from the white continent towards the southern tip of South America.

In isolation

Most of Antarctica's scientific stations are located along the peninsula, and scientists have known for many years that this portion of the continent is getting warmer.

But trends across the bulk of the continent have been much harder to discern, mainly because data from land stations is scarce.

It is somewhat insulated from the rest of the world's weather systems by winds and ocean currents that circulate around the perimeter.

In the new analysis, a team of US scientists combined data from land stations with satellite readings

"We have at least 25 years of data from satellites, and satellites have the huge advantage that they can see the whole continent," said Eric Steig from the University of Washington in Seattle.

"But the [land] stations have the advantage that they go back much further in time.

"So we combined the two; and what we found, in a nutshell, is that there is warming across the whole continent, it's stronger in winter and spring but it is there in all seasons."

They conclude that the eastern region of the continent, which is larger and colder than the western portion, is warming at 0.1C per decade, and the west at 0.17C per decade - faster than the global average.

The 2007 assessment of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded: "It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic (human-induced) warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica", with the word "likely" in this context meaning "at least 66% probability".

The scientists said this study did not change that picture, with natural climatic cycles probably involved as well as elevated greenhouse gas concentrations.

"It's hard to think of any situation where increased greenhouse gases would not lead to warming in Antarctica," said Drew Shindell from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) in New York.

"We're almost certain that greenhouse gas increases are contributing to this warming, but what's difficult is to attribute this warming and so say how much is down to natural warming and how much down to anthropogenic causes."

Last year, scientists from the UK Met Office used climate models to attribute trends at the poles, and concluded that human emissions of greenhouse gases were largely responsible for the observed warming.

Gareth Marshall from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), who was not involved in the analysis, commented: "This study shows that, similar to the other six continents, Antarctica has undergone a significant warming over the past 50 years.

"The magnitude of this warming is similar to the rest of the southern hemisphere, where we believe it is likely that human activity has played some role in the temperature increase, and therefore it is also likely that this is the case regarding an Antarctic warming."

Cool analysis

Over the last 30 years, satellites have also shown that sea ice is slowly growing in extent around Antarctica, which some observers say indicates a cooling across the continent or at least in the surrounding seas.

But Walt Meier from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, which follows ice trends at the poles, said wind patterns were probably the main reason.

"Around Antarctica, the winds play a much bigger role than they do in the Arctic," he said.

"If they're blowing northwards you can grow ice quite quickly and in contrast if they blow southwards the ice can contract quickly, whereas in the Arctic it's much more constrained (by land masses).

"So this positive trend in the Antarctic is certainly not an indication of any cooling trend."

One region that has seen spectacular losses of ice in recent years is the peninsula.

A BAS team currently on site is reporting that the Wilkins shelf, about 15,000 sq km in area, is probably about to break free.

"It really could go at any minute, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the final cracks started to appear very soon," said BAS's David Vaughan.

If it does, it will follow the course of other shelves that have made breakaways in recent years, such as the Larsen B in 2002.

Although spectacular, such events are not necessarily due to man-made climate change.

A much bigger question is whether the new analysis of Antarctic warming heralds any major melting in the West Antarctic ice sheet, which could led to big changes in sea level and global impacts.

"The vulnerability is higher than we thought, but still we face uncertainties in understanding these processes that make it very difficult to forecast when these changes would occur," said Drew Shindell.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm

Published: 2009/01/21 18:26:16 GMT

© BBC MMIX

.

Húrin

bleedin typical

BrickWall

Oh another report from the "experts".

And here I am freezing in this country for the last six months. Global what?

derry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...re/7843186.stm wrote:

<snip>
Last year, scientists from the UK Met Office used climate models to attribute trends at the poles, and concluded that human emissions of greenhouse gases were largely responsible for the observed warming.
<snip>


"We're almost certain that greenhouse gas increases are contributing to this warming, but what's difficult is to attribute this warming and so say how much is down to natural warming and how much down to anthropogenic causes."

More science waffle .Basically use of words like largly or almost certian all sorts of science waffle lingo.

The climate of the world always changes.The abilty of the human race with a trace gas CO2 to change this worlds climate is from me a non scientist using science terms "Most unlikely"

The GHIA book from the 1970,s which looked at the warming issue in that time was figuring that the trigger system for the ice age was the warming cooling cyle all through history.Basically the world warms up and did this many times long before humans were here and then the Ice block in the Antantaric breaks off.The ice block floats northward to the equator taking some 50 years to melt.In that time that big block of ice sends the world cimate crashing to very cooler in the mid latadudes .That triggers a huge Ice cap expansion on the polar region and Bingo in less than 100 years we all have to do a runner to Spain to get away from the 5 kilometer thick ice sheet destroying ROI

EEEEEKKKKK buy a house in Spain now now now next weeks eposode from the science brigade is the ice agers are back in force :pac::pac::pac:


Derry

gerky

If your looking for one of your usual ranting sessions please take it elsewhere.

I remember reading a while back where someone wrote "show me a scientist who says their research is 100% fact and I'll show you a liar"
And in a lot of cases this is true, there's a lot in science that is just a theory but unless someone can show proper evidence to suggest otherwise its the closest to fact we have, so yes you'll see words like "almost certain" but that's because in real science there are few places where the word fact has a place.

Húrin

derry wrote: »

More science waffle

Derry

I don't think that Derry needed to say anything else really. The first line says it all. We should not trust science here. We should trust derry's biased intuition. All hail derry.

derry

here are some link to keep you happy

So if you want the real story and there are lots of the science movement out there all qualified scientists who with the Internet will show you all that GW and climate change is probably a figment of some organizations imagination as they have thier own agenda which isnt anything to do with a real science debate

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/R6ijLAQWxyI/AAAAAAAAAOM/kG8uHZIoi0A/s1600-h/current.anom.south.jpg


What we can see on that graph is that 2009 the ice shield has grown a lot more this year than last year.The ice shield from the graph has been growing bigger most every year for the last ten years but 2009 was a real in your face big growth period

Starting with this graph


Now when we look this site we learn a lot

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Middleburynet/op-ed/gw wrote:

We can safely ballpark water vapor as being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect, with oxygen and nitrogen playing no role and carbon dioxide being relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller human-produced part.

That water vapour accounts for 95% of all global warming which is very for us good for us or else we all freeze with the cold

Middleburynet/op-ed/gw wrote:

"If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."

So going from 380PPM of CO2 to 600PPM or even 1000PPM wont have any noticable heating effect for this planet


I could bring you to many sites that show elements of this but this site explains most all arguments in a more easy to read version

So it nothing hail me its just I read buckets loads of stuff on the subject both for and against and the more i read the more I conclude the evidence is mounting strongly that GW is a load of hogwash bad suedo science wrpped up in neo fashist quazi religious movement that want to prove the end is nigh any day now


Derry

gerky

I think you'll find that the site you are linking to was brought up before on this forum and it was pretty much shown to be be a mix/mash of half truths/cherry picked information and also a good amount of lies, if you go searching you should find the thread.

derry wrote:

That water vapour accounts for 95% of all global warming which is very for us good for us or else we all freeze with the cold

eh no, yes water vapour is a greenhouse gas, I've no idea where they pulled the 95% from, water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing gas, and it is included in all research and climate models.
So all the research done that shows AGW is real and which you don't agree with includes the role of water vapour.

derry wrote:

So going from 380PPM of CO2 to 600PPM or even 1000PPM wont have any noticable heating effect for this planet

No, just no, It is accepted that co2 is the primary driver of current climate change so I'm going to keep believing in the laws of physics, thanks anyway.

I'm not in the mood of playing your game, its obvious that your not going to accept that manmade climate change is real no matter how much evidence shows it to be real.
So find someone else to play your games with.

derry

Seems down under closer to the antartic is some new evidence to blow this antartic heating

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming/

reproduced for ligitimate education needs

blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt wrote:

Professor Eric Steig last month announced in Nature that he’d spotted a warming in West Antarctica that previous researchers had missed through slackness - a warming so strong that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica.

Whew! Finally we had proof that Antarctica as a whole was warming, and not cooling, after all. Global warming really was global now.

The paper was immediately greeted with suspicion, not least because one of the authors was Michael Mann of the infamous “hockey stick”, now discredited, and the data was reconstructed from very sketchy weather station records, combined with assumptions from satellite observations.

But Steve McIntyre, who did most to expose Mann’s “hockey stick”, now notices a far more embarrassing problem with Steig’s paper.

Previous researchers hadn’t overlooked the data. What they’d done was to ignore data from four West Antarctic automatic weather stations in particular that didn’t meet their quality control. As you can see above, one shows no warming, two show insignificant warming and fourth - from a station dubbed “Harry” shows a sharp jump in temperature that helped Steig and his team discover their warming Antarctic.

Uh oh.

Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it:

Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in “New Harry” arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.

Read this link and this to see McIntyre’s superb forensic work.

Why wasn’t this error picked up earlier? Perhaps because the researchers got the results they’d hoped for, and no alarm bell went off that made them check. Now, wait for the papers to report the error with the zeal with which they reported Steig’s “warming”.

In your face it looks like that the BBC report based on the in " Nature " artical is wrong

more links

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

If you follow the links seems also the original link from the author of the artic is warming has been taken down

Close shave for the penguins who nearly got thier goose cooked from another Mann HOCKEY STICK

Derry

robtri

think we should rename this forum from green issues to derry issues:D

derry

robtri wrote: »

think we should rename this forum from green issues to derry issues:D

Ah! heck My issues are only to save the cuddly Polar bear and the sweet penguins from a GW event inpired from junk scienctists

Derry

Húrin

Derry, I don't want any of this science waffle, especially not from sites beginning with "blog".

hoser expat

derry wrote: »

Seems down under closer to the antartic is some new evidence to blow this antartic heating
Derry

It is Antarctic, as in a proper noun and with two c's.

GHIA is a car, Gaia is the hypothesis of interaction among physical properties of the Earth.

Both your scientific reasoning and spelling are horrible.

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

More science waffle .Basically use of words like largly or almost certian all sorts of science waffle lingo.

I believe this is the paper to which the article refers:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html

Feel free to review it and provide us with your scientific critique.

derry wrote: »

What we can see on that graph is that 2009 the ice shield has grown a lot more this year than last year.

So you think a trend visible over 12 months is more reliable than a trend observed over 30 years?

derry wrote: »

So going from 380PPM of CO2 to 600PPM or even 1000PPM wont have any noticable heating effect for this planet

I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I’m not sure the figures quoted on that website are at all accurate, but let’s suppose that 8% figure is correct. You’re saying that if the atmosphere was to absorb 8% of all the infrared radiation emitted by the earth, there would not be any noticeable effect? Would the atmosphere not heat up?

derry wrote: »

Seems down under closer to the antartic is some new evidence to blow this antartic heating

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming/

Virtually every link on that page leads to another blog – I simply don’t have the time to sift through them all. I will point out one thing though – Mann’s Hockey Stick has not been discredited as that blog suggests. Quite the opposite in fact; many independent studies have produced results very similar to that produced by Mann:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg

syklops

gerky wrote: »

its obvious that your not going to accept that manmade climate change is real no matter how much evidence shows it to be real.
So find someone else to play your games with.

Yeah, but from the article.....

Although spectacular, such events are not necessarily due to man-made climate change.

I'm confused....

gerky

syklops wrote: »

Yeah, but from the article.....



I'm confused....

When I replied to derry I wasn't only referring to this thread I had already been in threads in which he spouts the usual derry style of "debate"

derry

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe this is the paper to which the article refers:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html

Feel free to review it and provide us with your scientific critique.
So you think a trend visible over 12 months is more reliable than a trend observed over 30 years?
I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I’m not sure the figures quoted on that website are at all accurate, but let’s suppose that 8% figure is correct. You’re saying that if the atmosphere was to absorb 8% of all the infrared radiation emitted by the earth, there would not be any noticeable effect? Would the atmosphere not heat up?
Virtually every link on that page leads to another blog – I simply don’t have the time to sift through them all. I will point out one thing though – Mann’s Hockey Stick has not been discredited as that blog suggests. Quite the opposite in fact; many independent studies have produced results very similar to that produced by Mann:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg

First I cant review nature now as it costs money unless I do it through a suitable libary so that will take a few days
I will come back later on the hockey stick as there are lots of disputes about IPCC and this hockey 2001 version which even IPCC changed this graph since in 2004 if I recall

As for the 8% making heating the problem is for the infra red heat to be trapped it would show up as the higher atmosphere getting a lot warmer.
So far last i looked the small exta heating found was only close to the ground so that suggests the infra red heating is probably a micro heating event and gets lost as not measurable


Derry

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

As for the 8% making heating the problem is for the infra red heat to be trapped it would show up as the higher atmosphere getting a lot warmer.

Not just the higher atmosphere, the whole planet.

Suppose for a moment that there was no atmosphere, i.e. all solar radiation absorbed by the earth is balanced by all of the Earth's heat being radiated back into space (in the form of infra-red radiation) and the planet essentially behaves as a black body radiator. The surface of the earth is maintained at a constant mean temperature of x degrees Kelvin. Now suppose an atmosphere is placed around the earth that absorbs 8% of the infra-red energy emitted from the Earth's surface. This will cause the atmosphere to heat up and emit heat in the form of infra-red radiation. It will continue to heat up until the emitted radiation balances the absorbed radiation. But the atmosphere will emit some heat back toward the Earth's surface, causing the surface temperature to increase and more infra-red radiation to be emitted, causing the temperature of the atmosphere to increase, etc., etc. This will continue until an equilibrium is established and the surface temperature rises to some new level, y degrees Kelvin. Now, it may take a relatively long time for the temperature to climb from x to y degrees, but it must occur if the laws of thermodynamics are to be satisfied.

derry

Futher to the hockey stick but it will take a week to get all the info to show the hockey stick is debunked

a short extract from this site bishophill.squarespace.com
qouted for legitmate education requirements

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

bishophill.squarespace.com wrote:

McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records.

Facinating but lenthy articale where its evident the IPCC and the pro global warmers are willing to corrupt any academic papers whatever to fit the hockey stick argument
The hokey stick cant fit the medevial warm period or the mini ice age so it suspect at best and down right science fraud at worst

After many manovers the piture of the global warmers slimmy games as trustworthy academics for me has gone from suspect to gob smacking these global warmers are acadmemic frauds at best or victims of IPCC political agenda to dictate terms CO2 useage based on GW junk science


The more I dig the more dirt keep coming out that IPCC is political entity that makes or forces science to fit a political agenda

So I will keep digging as my preference is to see proper science doing a proper job and supplying the facts without joe soaps like me having to trawl through buckets of data to see who is telling porkies

Derry

derry

hoser expat wrote: »

It is Antarctic, as in a proper noun and with two c's.

GHIA is a car, Gaia is the hypothesis of interaction among physical properties of the Earth.

Both your scientific reasoning and spelling are horrible.

yes you been quite for a while cat bite your tongue.

Ghia or giai hard to remember a book I read in ~1980 long before this GW was the craze we see today
At least it pointed out the sheer complexity of the earth climate system and the often hundred of thousand years it takes to change the planet climate incrementally for any reason

Still waiting for how you a claimed climate change scientist of the new art of magicians of climate science can make 1/650,000,000 of daily CO2 emissions from mankind into the atmosphere into this new boggie man


OK here another model for you to ponder

There is ball park10 tons of air over the square meter of the ground where you live . Which if it was a constant pressure 1 atmosphere would be 25,000 feet high .Now if we made 280 PPM (part per million) a heavier than air gas that stayed on the ground the height we could aspire to CO would be some (25,000/1,000,000)*270 which comes to 6,75 or ~7 feet
If we then made the this CO2 a lighter than air gas and it floated to the top we could ball park say the green house has a 7 foot thick layer of green house gasses capping the atmosphere which deflects some of the infra red heat back down to the earth.Then if we make the 270PPM equal 380PPM we make this gas layer some 9.5 or ~10 feet thick.(mankind input to this rise is at best 1/10th of this figure so we can say less than 10 inches which is not bad for a bunch of talking monkeys but its probaly less than ~5 inches (seems we can change the planets atmosphere by some miniscule fraction like what is the fraction or % of 5 inches on 25000 feet ???) )
Even if my maths are wrong the facts are we are dealing with extremly small fractions and extremly samml % and any noise can can easily damp out any effects so then we enter the subjective believe systems and then the science gets hairy if there is outside influences like cult followers inputing on this

So the big questions are things like what effect making a CO layer thicker might have like would we get a lot extra infra red heat deflected back to earth as in is it linear progression or exponential positive or negative or is it of a significant amount at all

Green house is a term often used . OK lets call this 7 or 10 foot thick CO2 a Glass thickness to make it simple

In glass houses we can cover the ground with plastic sheet or thin glass say 4 mm or thicker glass 6mm and what difference do we find

First we find that the super thin Plastic does most of the work nearly as much as glass and the thicker glass wont have such a big difference on the thin glass

So does the same apply to the earth

One link I found (I will search for haven't got it now ) CO2 showed that 100PPM does the most work for trapping heat .After that it incremental.At about 270PPM the difference between 270 and 315 PPM is nearly flat .Raising the PPM to 380 PPM or even 600 or even 1000PPM is so incrementally small a heat rise that its not worth considering the difference from figure exceeding something like 250PPM.

The hockey stick repeats itself

Now from a fraction point of view this 7 foot thick or even 10 feet thick layer on 25,000 feet is very small number compared to a very big number.Its going to make it tough to prove these small changes can have any real big effect or that even 100PPM of CO2 has the heating effect that is attributed to it

Very simple cloud cover over a region of the planet with mostly thick cloud cover such as ROI dampens temperature swings compared to no cloud cover like Sahara desert which have extreme temperatureswing shows that water vapour has a big effect on local temperature and makes CO2 look like a damp squib for global temperature effects

So when climate scientist stalk about climate models if the climate models have seriously flawed data then the risk to get a garbage in garbage out result is high.Computer science driven by the desire to own big number crunchers to run hair splitting numbers wont admit they are chasing their tails as the input numbers from Climate science are rubbish as if the results show there is no heating effect from CO2 the climate science and computer science are unemployed.Its as symbiotic relationship to keep feeding the results and show that GW will cook our goose

Basic maths at the lowest levels shows the risk from CO2 causing any global warming is small extremely small and it up to Climate science to really and truly show exactly how this could happen.

Often the term is Climate science has to pass the basic laugh ommeter test from the rest of the fields of science to be half believed as in threw more money at researching this GW or look for real cures
It seems big chunks of other science fields it seems are rolling around laughing at the GW and climate change models and the suedo science that has completely hijacked the climate science debate

In simple maths and simplex models we can do simple tests to see if it is worthwhile to look for some effects.Simple maths shows even we made the sun hotter by a fraction of a % the world would be heated far faster than any probable heat trapping effects of the CO2 gas

So Is there some underlying madness in science to make humans want to believe in religious science that they a few bugs relative to huge planet can change the direction of the planet
Another model to consider is if you took all the worlds population and put them in one place shoulder to shoulder they would be only taking up the Isle of white
The isle of white surface area of the planet is tiny very tiny defiantly in the low 1/1000 th of a fraction and so the concept that the humans are changing the planet is marginal logic at best and probably some sort of ego science(seeing as your the math wizard of climate science I will let you work out the fraction)

Anyway one day this climate science will be knocked back into shape probably by simple maths as a obscure academic science lost on some campus where it probably belongs . Then joe soaps like me wont have to be hand picking over this branch of science to see where the religious inputs and big money inputs trail is directing and false flagging this science and is even leading this climate science

And then to stick the climate science nose in it they didnt even spot global dimming for over 20 years so that science if it is correct shows how big a screw up they can make and which from my memory giai in ~1980 postulated might be an important factor

Derry

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

bishophill.squarespace.com wrote:

McIntyre … criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records.

This doesn’t make any sense – a global temperature record only exists from about 1850, whereas Mann’s data goes back to about 1000AD.

derry wrote: »

Facinating but lenthy articale where its evident the IPCC and the pro global warmers are willing to corrupt any academic papers whatever to fit the hockey stick argument

I’m curious to know why you consider what it essentially an anonymous blog to be more trustworthy than scientific journals?

derry wrote: »

The hokey stick cant fit the medevial warm period or the mini ice age so it suspect at best and down right science fraud at worst

I don’t understand this statement – the hockey stick doesn’t show what you want to see, therefore it constitutes fraud?

derry wrote: »

Still waiting for how you a claimed climate change scientist of the new art of magicians of climate science can make 1/650,000,000 of daily CO2 emissions from mankind into the atmosphere into this new boggie man

I questioned the accuracy of a similar statement you made on anther thread, which you failed to respond to:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58890039&postcount=199

derry wrote: »

Then if we make the 270PPM equal 380PPM we make this gas layer some 9.5 or ~10 feet thick.(mankind input to this rise is at best 1/10th of this figure…

I also questioned this claim on another thread and I’m still awaiting your response? Why do you assume that man is responsible for just 10% of the measured increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

derry wrote: »

…so we can say less than 10 inches which is not bad for a bunch of talking monkeys but its probaly less than ~5 inches (seems we can change the planets atmosphere by some miniscule fraction like what is the fraction or % of 5 inches on 25000 feet ???) )
Even if my maths are wrong the facts are we are dealing with extremly small fractions and extremly samml % and any noise can can easily damp out any effects so then we enter the subjective believe systems and then the science gets hairy if there is outside influences like cult followers inputing on this

You’re entire argument against AGW seems to be based on the fact that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to matter, which is absurd reasoning. The Bhopal Disaster resulted in the release of just 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate gas into the surrounding atmosphere, but it still resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. In fact, methyl isocyanate is toxic at an extremely low concentration of just 0.4 ppm.

derry wrote: »

One link I found (I will search for haven't got it now ) CO2 showed that 100PPM does the most work for trapping heat .After that it incremental.At about 270PPM the difference between 270 and 315 PPM is nearly flat .Raising the PPM to 380 PPM or even 600 or even 1000PPM is so incrementally small a heat rise that its not worth considering the difference from figure exceeding something like 250PPM.

Utter nonsense. Feel free to provide a link though (to yet another blog, no doubt :rolleyes:).

derry wrote: »

So when climate scientist stalk about climate models if the climate models have seriously flawed data then the risk to get a garbage in garbage out result is high.

Can you provide an example of such a climate model?

derry wrote: »

Basic maths at the lowest levels shows the risk from CO2 causing any global warming is small extremely small…

Is it indeed; perhaps you could calculate said risk for us?

derry wrote: »

So Is there some underlying madness in science to make humans want to believe in religious science that they a few bugs relative to huge planet can change the direction of the planet

So humans have had no discernable impact on the planet? None whatsoever?