Re: Global warming BS

On Dec 20, 4:01 pm, "M104gal...@xxxxxxxxx" <M104gal...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:11 am, Jax <ex...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
Roughly half of the GW over the past century can be explained by
changes in solar output - but the other half which occurred
predominantly after 1970 (and is accelerating) cannot be explained
away except by changes in the way the Earths atmosphere allows heat to
escape.

Accelerating?

We know from the models that the amount of additional forcing
increases with increasing CO2 concentration. The change in temperature
follows from this. There have recently been claims to have detected
this prediction experimentally in global sea level measurments
although I have to say that until there is a much longer contiguous
record I am not convinced it has been observed.

And this still doesn't answer how mush is due to natural causes, not
specifically to very small increases in ppm of man-made CO2--which, as
you must know, is a far less dangerous greenhouse gas than methane or
even water vapor.

Methane gets oxidised to CO2 fairly rapidly in the atmosphere
(although it is a much worse greenhouse gas while it persists). But we
are in really deep trouble if the permafrost tundra lakes and other
clathrate desposits start releasing lots of methane into the
atmosphere.

Do you really believe the oceans are going to rise 2 feet in the next
40 years? Yes or no??

No. I expect about 50cm by the end of 2100 - roughly in the middle of
IPCC predictions.

That doesn't sound a lot but it seriously erodes the margin of safety
for sea defences. To put it into context the UK eastern seaboard
largely escaped unscathed from the 3m tidal surge on 9th November by a
margin of about 20cm. Actually a few places were overtopped but not by
enough to cause anything remotely like the 1953 disaster flooding.

There are two specific questions here.

Does the science stack up for AGW ? And the answer is now
unambiguously. Yes.

Can we find a solution that is acceptable and economically viable? I
don't know.

Regards,
Martin Brown
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - *Some* Canadians get it . . . .
    ... CO2 is not 'the major greenhouse gas'. ... " While manure-derived methane is proving very useful, the methane cows burp is causing problems. ... Methane is a greenhouse gas and, in the atmosphere, contributes to global warming. ... Unfortunately, burped methane is more difficult to collect, with the result that about six million metric tons of it float blissfully up into the atmosphere every year. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • from press release ghgs....methane resumes upward trend...
    ... World Meteorological Organization?s 2007 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin ... "The latest numbers show that carbon dioxide reached 383.1 parts per ... the year before, while methane increased 0.34 per cent, exceeding the ... atmosphere have risen an unfettered 37 per cent. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: READ IT AND WEEP YOU POOR BASTARDS
    ... >>actual CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so I don't really see how the reactor will ... methane is 20-100 times more effective than carbon ... >atmosphere and instead and dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere), ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Atmospheric levels of the main greenhouse gas are hitting new highs.
    ... Atmospheric levels of the main greenhouse gas are hitting new highs, ... "The rise is in line with the long-term trend," Kim Holmen, research ... Levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human ... out of the atmosphere as they grow. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Chuggers Coming
    ... to have ended there has been a steady increase in CO2 emmisions ... and 1980 the temperatures plateaued or even fell. ... Once we cleaned up the atmosphere ... If you want to cut down on greenhouse gasses, cut down on methane by chopping ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)