Neil,
Let it go. I have no doubt you earnestly believe we are doomed without action on AGW but I for one don't - and I suspect I am not alone here.
I believe we have threats to our continued civilisation but at the moment those threats are mainly coming from our own policies to combat AGW. For example the head of the UK national power grid is saying that continued power to homes is going to be a
thing of the past. Is this due to a shortage of resources ? No.
Its because we are madly committed to reducing CO2 emissions with renewables with just don't ****ing work without mega subsidies and therefore we won't invest in technology that really does work.
And even when renewabls are used they only make up 0.4% of the demand in the uk, and the only for 28% of the time. I looked at a wind farm today - no turbines turning.
However the subsidies are great. It was so great that business worked out they could make money from it, which was
not what the government had expected - maybe there is a message there. So they froze the subsidies.
To prove AGW you have to prove three things.
1. Unusual or unprecedented climate change is happening.
Nope.
Not here either.
Not even in Antarctica.
And its been snowing in SFO. Not for the first time though ?
2. That the climate change is caused directly by greenhouse gasses.
Possibly, but isolating those from other factors (without useless high school experiments involving light bulbs and glass jars full of CO2) is hard. Which is why the models
fail to even predict the weather. Of course weather is not climate, except when its a disaster -
hot or
cold.
But of course there is a feedback idea. Or
maybe not.
Quote:
|
The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, assumesCS = 0.41 ̊C for the tropical zone, CS = 0.40 ̊C for the moderate zones and CS = 0.92 ̊C for the polar zones. The weighted average over all regions as the global climate sensitivity is found to be CS = 0.45 ̊C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%, which mostly results from the lack of more precise data for the convection between the ground and atmosphere as well as the atmospheric backscattering…. The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1 ̊C – 4.4 ̊C with an average value of 3.2 ̊C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here.
|
3. That our creation of such gasses is tipping us over the edge.
Seeing as 1 and 2 are at nope then nope.
That tapped as I have said several times before we are all here for different reasons but with the same aim if not the same outcome idea - reducing how much oil / fuel we use to the minimum we need.
If you believe this will improve the climate then great. If you believe it will improve security of energy then great too. If you do it to save money then thats good too.
I'm not watching this thread any more either.
