Yet more proof.

[papasmurf]

Please control your Autism Adrian.
If you read it you clearly don't understand it.

Nick it is you who don't understand. 

[Nick]

Science not your strong point Nick?

Please control your Autism Adrian. 
If you read it you clearly don't understand it. 

[papasmurf]

Do gases retain some trace amount of temperature from day to day?

Science not your strong point Nick?

[Nick]

<Bangs head on desk>

Nobody is arguing co2 is a toxin

Nobody is denying it is vital for green plants.

You are putting up a straw man.

The argument is:

1) humans are responsible for the measured rise in Co2 levels from pre industrial levels.

2) This measured rise in Co2 concentration is responsible for the majority of the observed global temperature rise

3) this measured rise in global temperature is responsible for the observed changes in climate patterns world wide

4) these observed changes in climate patterns will have detrimental effects on our way of life.

Which of the above arguments do you disagree with?  What Is your evidence for disagreement?

Originally you argued that orbital changes were more likely to be the cause of the observed changes in temperatures than co2 because (you argued) co2 driven change would result in warmer summers and winters.

You linked to an article about the coldest night for 14 years in November.

Putting aside the difference between weather and climate, the data (with the befit if hindsight) clearly shows the temperature pattern fits the CO2 explanation you yourself out forward (warmer all year round)

I disagree with all of it, and the science is there to prove it.

So the big question that your complete argument hinges on is:

Do gases retain some trace amount of temperature from day to day?
You can check The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website, it provides a high for the day and a low for the next morning. The temperature drops were take from various locations in the States, with an average drop from 26.6 to 14.4 degrees Celsius. The drops are from many samples taken in winter, so it proves that the temperature drops at a steady rate when the Sun goes down and if it didn't come back up the Earth would be frozen in about 48hrs (dropping 12.2 degrees every 12 hours). This shows that temperature is not retained from day to day (Global Warming) and any prolonged warming is caused by the Sun. It further proves that Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Water Vapour do NOT retain heat from day to day.

This is factual science and not some model that has been built to prove the point they want it to prove. The results being peer reviewed and agreed upon by another scientist that wants his slice of the 2.6 billion pie that is made available to these liberals.

A brick weighs more than a feather, the scientific proof of this is to put them both on the scales and weigh them. Between 1950 and 1985 Atmospheric scientists all agree that the temperature of the Earth dropped slightly, the same happened between 1997 and 2015, during both period's atmospheric CO2 increased.

Would you care to share actual scientific measurements that prove that what I've just said is not correct? The fact your points are labelled (by you) as an argument, and not science shows the complete fragility of your case. 

The amount of damage the Climate Change lobby is doing to our economy with green policy is infinitely more damaging than what a 1.5 degree increase would ever do, that's assuming that the fairy story they sell was true. 

[BeElBeeBub]

The planet is the green it's been in a long time, and green means a lot more plants absorbing CO2, not a toxin like all you doom mongers suggest, it's the giver of life. And in the past we have had twice the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have now.

<Bangs head on desk>

Nobody is arguing co2 is a toxin

Nobody is denying it is vital for green plants.

You are putting up a straw man.

The argument is:

1) humans are responsible for the measured rise in Co2 levels from pre industrial levels.

2) This measured rise in Co2 concentration is responsible for the majority of the observed global temperature rise

3) this measured rise in global temperature is responsible for the observed changes in climate patterns world wide

4) these observed changes in climate patterns will have detrimental effects on our way of life.

Which of the above arguments do you disagree with?  What Is your evidence for disagreement?

Originally you argued that orbital changes were more likely to be the cause of the observed changes in temperatures than co2 because (you argued) co2 driven change would result in warmer summers and winters.

You linked to an article about the coldest night for 14 years in November.

Putting aside the difference between weather and climate, the data (with the befit if hindsight) clearly shows the temperature pattern fits the CO2 explanation you yourself out forward (warmer all year round)

[cromwell]

Ok let's address this as it comes up alot.  Basically "why should we believe scientists about global warming when they thought the earth was cooling in the 70's"

The answer is scientists (at least the majority - more on that later) didn't think global cooling was a thing in the 70's.

There were a few papers starting in the 60's that proposed global cooling, based on post war trends. These were picked up on in the media with several articles and TV documentaries.

However the majority of climate science papers in that era proposed global warming and we're more influential.

For example the first paper about global cooling was MacCormick and Ludwig in 1967. It was cited a total of 67 times in other papers.

In the same year Manage and Wetherald was published discussing global warming. It was cited over 300 times in other papers

The pattern repeats there were some global cooling papers through the 70's but more global warming ones and those were more influential.

What really happened was "some scientists advanced the theory of global cooling in the 70's which caught the media imagination but majority of scientists thought global warming was more likely"

You can understand the media's PoV. We had had some global cooling since ww2 and visuals of giant ice sheets advancing across Washington and London are pretty cool (ha!) looking.

But as an argument to discount climate change as happening it's a non starter.

An argument to discount climate change what are you on about,did I not say the climate has always changed if the climate cools that's climate change.

You say it wasn't as bad as the time of doggerland,if it was as bad as it was then I expect much of the east coast and Holland will disappear.

[Nick]

The planet is the green it's been in a long time, and green means a lot more plants absorbing CO2, not a toxin like all you doom mongers suggest, it's the giver of life. And in the past we have had twice the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have now. 

[BeElBeeBub]

...

Its the age old hubris of humanity that we can somehow control this planet,do we have an effect? of course we do but a lot of our problems are related to population.

That hubris I mentioned spouts that we are destroying the planet but we in this country can reverse that with net zero,I said if this country ceased to exist it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the CO2 in the atmosphere you couldn't even answer that.

Whilst China,India and emerging nations opt for the easy option we are urged in to ulez and low traffic zones with hefty fines and a mad dash for electric vehicles badly thought out so much so their manufacture and subsequent disposal will cause more environmental issues than solved.
...

The "we are to small to matter" brigade.

Often the same bunch that were shouting "global Britain" and "world leading" not that long ago.

Yes the UK is about 1% of global emissions (though that figure underplays emissions incurred on our behalf by other countries eg stuff made for us in China).

We are about 1% of global population.  

In other words we pump out about the average.
Other countries that pump out more but have larger populations.  You can't expect India or China to produce less total emissions than the UK?

The big danger is developing (and developed) nations taking the easy option and continuing to pump out co2.

How can the UK tell India "don't build cheap fossil fuel plants, use solar and wind"  when we keep building fossil fuel plants?

We need to lead to by example - and to be fair we have done really well on wind - astonishingly well. 

But now the conservative wing has decided to use it as a culture wars issue and is backing down to try and win  few votes from people they have enraged at strawmen.

[cromwell]

The population could.

Yes I said all that in my post.

[BeElBeeBub]

Yes it's a graph,there is in science such as this a bias which is then proved wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

In the seventies we were told a new ice age was coming,talk about that was scuppered by them saying that the science wasn't as good or accurate as now.

This then altered to it never happened or it wasn't the scientists but nonsense produced by the red tops,funny that as I remember it being aired on bbc science progs.

Ok let's address this as it comes up alot.  Basically "why should we believe scientists about global warming when they thought the earth was cooling in the 70's"

The answer is scientists (at least the majority - more on that later) didn't think global cooling was a thing in the 70's.

There were a few papers starting in the 60's that proposed global cooling, based on post war trends. These were picked up on in the media with several articles and TV documentaries.

However the majority of climate science papers in that era proposed global warming and we're more influential.

For example the first paper about global cooling was MacCormick and Ludwig in 1967. It was cited a total of 67 times in other papers.

In the same year Manage and Wetherald was published discussing global warming. It was cited over 300 times in other papers 

The pattern repeats there were some global cooling papers through the 70's but more global warming ones and those were more influential.

What really happened was "some scientists advanced the theory of global cooling in the 70's which caught the media imagination but majority of scientists thought global warming was more likely"

You can understand the media's PoV. We had had some global cooling since ww2 and visuals of giant ice sheets advancing across Washington and London are pretty cool (ha!) looking.

But as an argument to discount climate change as happening it's a non starter.

[papasmurf]

The earth wont die because of global warming,

The population could.

[cromwell]

Did you look at the graph?  The warmest it got was around 5k years ago where the upper estimate was 0.4C above the baseline (the central estimate we. 0.3C above baseline)

The anomaly in 2023 was 1.2C above baseline.

It might have been this hot 200k years ago just after (relatively speaking) homo sapiens emerged.

It was definitely hotter back 1m years ago.

But for all of recorded human history it has not been this hot.

But sure, we had a cold night last November and Nick can't understand why CO2 doesn't sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, so I'm sure it's fine.

Yes it's a graph,there is in science such as this a bias which is then proved wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

In the seventies we were told a new ice age was coming,talk about that was scuppered by them saying that the science wasn't as good or accurate as now.

This then altered to it never happened or it wasn't the scientists but nonsense produced by the red tops,funny that as I remember it being aired on bbc science progs.

The blind faith spouted that this is the science now it cannot be wrong,asI I said the climate has always changed,the Thames froze over regularly for two centuries the whole country was in in a mini ice age.

Today whatever happens hot,cold drought or floods it's always climate change (the new religion) where scientists now like the popes of old are considered infallible and that they have all the answers.

Its the age old hubris of humanity that we can somehow control this planet,do we have an effect? of course we do but a lot of our problems are related to population.

That hubris I mentioned spouts that we are destroying the planet but we in this country can reverse that with net zero,I said if this country ceased to exist it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the CO2 in the atmosphere you couldn't even answer that.

Whilst China,India and emerging nations opt for the easy option we are urged in to ulez and low traffic zones with hefty fines and a mad dash for electric vehicles badly thought out so much so their manufacture and subsequent disposal will cause more environmental issues than solved.

The earth wont die because of global warming,it has gone through much rougher times than the very short era of humanity being top of the chain,as is said if the existence of earth was converted into a twenty four hour clock we arrive at one second to midnight.

Its that hubris again,if we all disappeared tomorrow the earth will continue to circle the sun,life and the earth will go on and another species may emerge as the top of the chain,eventually of course the earth will cease to exist and we will barely register as a blip in its existence.

[BeElBeeBub]

Hmmmm nice swerve but you actually said this
The global climate has *never* changed to this degree whilst humans have been around.

Clearly it has.

Did you look at the graph?  The warmest it got was around 5k years ago where the upper estimate was 0.4C above the baseline (the central estimate we. 0.3C above baseline)

The anomaly in 2023 was 1.2C above baseline.

It might have been this hot 200k years ago just after (relatively speaking) homo sapiens emerged. 

It was definitely hotter back 1m years ago.

But for all of recorded human history it has not been this hot.

But sure, we had a cold night last November and Nick can't understand why CO2 doesn't sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, so I'm sure it's fine.

[cromwell]

An excellent question and one that illustrates my point exactly.

Doggerland was inundated as the global temperature increased and ice sheets melted.  A possible sudden release of an enormous melt water lake in N America may have payed a part.

The impact on the peoples who lived there was (as you can imagine) catastrophic.

Noe the global temperatures then were lower than today (though warmer than the global temps at the start of the industrial revolution)

Hmmmm nice swerve but you actually said this
The global climate has *never* changed to this degree whilst humans have been around.

Clearly it has.

[BeElBeeBub]

Really so what happened to Doggerland?

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/doggerland/

An excellent question and one that illustrates my point exactly.

Doggerland was inundated as the global temperature increased and ice sheets melted.  A possible sudden release of an enormous melt water lake in N America may have payed a part.

The impact on the peoples who lived there was (as you can imagine) catastrophic.

Noe the global temperatures then were lower than today (though warmer than the global temps at the start of the industrial revolution)