Have you got 5 mins to listen to Sir David King ?

[renewablejohn]

richbee The colours are fine they tell the same story that plants can stabilise the whole planet down to its lowest level in the colour band in the summer months and has been doing that using data going back to the 1890's. Bearing in mind this is actually parts per million it is a miniscule rise given CO2 only amounts to 0.04% of earths atmosphere. The colours also show the real problem is not CO2 per se but is in the width of the band between summer and winter. In the left chart the variation is only 4 parts per million whereas the right chart is 10 parts per million a clear indication of the CO2 injected into the atmosphere for winter heating at a time when intake by plants are at there lowest.

[renewablejohn]

Marcus Sorry but I cannot be bothered responding.

[Bugtownboy]

richbee The colours are fine they tell the same story that plants can stabilise the whole planet down to its lowest level in the colour band in the summer months and has been doing that using data going back to the 1890's. Bearing in mind this is actually parts per million it is a miniscule rise given CO2 only amounts to 0.04% of earths atmosphere. The colours also show the real problem is not CO2 per se but is in the width of the band between summer and winter. In the left chart the variation is only 4 parts per million whereas the right chart is 10 parts per million a clear indication of the CO2 injected into the atmosphere for winter heating at a time when intake by plants are at there lowest.

Look at it again !

The charts do NOT use the same scale. CO2 levels in the summer months (JJA) are 25% higher in the right hand chart compared to the same period in the left hand.

Yes, it demonstrates seasonal variation but with significantly different start/end points.

Over the whole year, in the right hand charts, there’s only a 2% variation in (the significantly increased from the left hand charts) CO2 levels.

I would suggest Fig 3 is not the best and clearest way of presenting data.

[renewablejohn]

bugtownboy Lets put CO2 into perspective. If we get CO2 less than 150 ppm were totally screwed as plants stop growing. For millions of years its been as high as 4000 ppm. As per fig 3 going back to 1890-1989 the aveage summer figure was 312 and between 2004-2013 was 385. Compare that to a normal office environment where it gets a bit stuffy at 900 ppm and the CO2 alarm goes off at 1500 ppm. Its totally irrational being concerned about the summer increase from 312 to 385 what Fig 3 shows is the winter increase is where targeted effort needs to be focussed in terms of CO2 reduction a high proportion of which will be fossil fuels for winter heating requirements.

[spread-tee]

John Please, you're getting your logic mixed up here.

The one relevant issue is that the CO2 levels have risen from about 300 ppm to over 400ppm in the last sixty years, and an even bigger increase since we started burning carbon industrially, That is a massive increase, the annual winter/summer variation, or the levels in offices or kitchens, or how well plants grow has absolutely no relevance to the impacts it has on the climate.

The influence CO2 has on the radiation balance is well understood and not in question (mostly) the fact that 400ppm is a small proportion of the atmosphere is also irrelevant, warming the planet by an average of maybe 2 degrees C in a hundred years is totally unprecedented and take our environment far away from where it was as we evolved to our present population. We seem hell bent on making our planet less habitable for society as it stands now.

That cannot be good.

Desp

[Marcus]

Marcus Sorry but I cannot be bothered responding.

Good! Saves me the effort of trying to reason with you.

[Mart]

Marcus Sorry but I cannot be bothered responding.

Good! Saves me the effort of trying to reason with you.

Wanna borrow my bargepole?

[renewablejohn]

Marcus - Cannot be bothered as others can explain why its certainly not worth my effort.

[spread-tee]

Ah yes, another "ask an expert in a different discipline" ploy Dyson in his day was a giant of cosmology and quantum electrodynamics, but not a climate specialist.
I trade you this

https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_ ... ablishment

from which Dyson says:-

He portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

and

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse."

Hmm, even I know that in terms of global warming clouds are well below the radar, he appears not to know the difference between weather and climate, why would you create an issue about clouds when we can easily measure the global temperature, which incidentally has broken three records for the hottest day in the last two weeks, it's there right in front of us as plain as reading a thermometer. How can you argue with that when people like Hansen were predicting this kind of stuff would happen back in the mid 1970s ?



Again you side with a few mavericks who disagree, but the IPCC reports are built on the works of tens of thousands of contributors who are mostly in agreement

[nowty]

The newspaper “The Independent” did a fact check on some of Freeman Dyson’s claims over a decade ago.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/freeman-dys ... dependent/