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

[Bugtownboy]

Rained on St Swithens day here too.

Been dry since and today is blistering sunshine - all doors open, BBQ tonight

So I’m not sure folklore is too reliable.

We can argue the rights and wrongs of climate change, though the body of peer reviewed evidence is that it is caused by us producing too much CO2.

Bottom line, CO2 or not CO2 or even H2O, our ‘business model’ is screwing the planet.

We cannot continue ‘consuming’, living the lifestyles we in the first world do.

The planet cannot support it.

We had a temporary reset during lockdown, people temporarily changed their lifestyles. Things improved.

Trouble is, we weren’t consuming enough to support our capitalist societies. We were encouraged to go out and buy our Costa’s (other coffees are available), fast food and eat out to save the restaurants.

I think we’ve gone past a point where we can fiddle about with changes to lifestyle that still would be significant.

I don’t think there’s a general will to accept we are rapidly approaching a crisis, if we’re not already there.

It’s, unfortunately, going to take catastrophic change and probably war, to bring about the change.

On that bright note, I’ll get back out in the sunshine.

[nowty]

Its so simple if you start with the realisation that CO2 is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere and the real culprit is water vapour at upto 4% in the atmosphere. (Dont take my word for it as climate scientists keep spouting the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 and water vapour) CO2 is not a problem in the low atmosphere as its part of the earths natural cycle between animals and plants.

The problen only arises with CO2 in the upper atmosphere which is directly caused by human intervention in the form of high altitude flights. Easily solved by banning high altitude flights and restricting aviation to low level aviation below the water vapour threshold. Remove the upper barrier and the leaky vapour barrier can carry on working like it did prior to the aviation era.

For another farming analogy its the same as I do gtowing crops in the winter. My normal polytunnel is the upper atmosphere I then have a second polytunnel inside the first which is equivalent to the lower atmosphere. Plants outside quite often below freezing, Plants in outer polytunnel have frost occasionally, Plants in inner polytunnel remain in the 5C to 25C frost protected zone.

Ahh, the old water vapour chestnut.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-na ... se-effect/

Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.


Aircraft fly in the upper atmosphere do they ?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... phere.html
The lowest part of the atmosphere is up to around 50,000 feet,
Troposphere 0–10 Miles - The troposphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere where all human activity takes place.

Several of us have acknowledged the extra warming problem from aircraft, but suggesting the world will cool without them is folly as it still only accounts for a few percent of the warming.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... e-thought/


And as for the greenhouse [ or polytunnel] analogy, I personally don't like that analogy as the earths atmosphere does not heat in the same way as a greenhouse but it helps some people understand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Terminology
The term greenhouse effect comes from an analogy to greenhouses. Both greenhouses and the greenhouse effect work by retaining heat from sunlight, but the way they retain heat differs. Greenhouses retain heat mainly by blocking convection (the movement of air).[10][11] In contrast, the greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting radiative transfer through the air and reducing the rate at which heat escapes to space.[5]

[Moxi]

Rained on St Swithens day here too.

Been dry since and today is blistering sunshine - all doors open, BBQ tonight

So I’m not sure folklore is too reliable.

We can argue the rights and wrongs of climate change, though the body of peer reviewed evidence is that it is caused by us producing too much CO2.

Bottom line, CO2 or not CO2 or even H2O, our ‘business model’ is screwing the planet.

We cannot continue ‘consuming’, living the lifestyles we in the first world do.

The planet cannot support it.

We had a temporary reset during lockdown, people temporarily changed their lifestyles. Things improved.

Trouble is, we weren’t consuming enough to support our capitalist societies. We were encouraged to go out and buy our Costa’s (other coffees are available), fast food and eat out to save the restaurants.

I think we’ve gone past a point where we can fiddle about with changes to lifestyle that still would be significant.

I don’t think there’s a general will to accept we are rapidly approaching a crisis, if we’re not already there.

It’s, unfortunately, going to take catastrophic change and probably war, to bring about the change.

On that bright note, I’ll get back out in the sunshine.

Plus one Bugtownboy,

[renewablejohn]

Will just leave this here. CO2 is not a problem see fig3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01196-7

You may wish to think about the main growing season in the Northern half of the world.

[nowty]

Will just leave this here. CO2 is not a problem see fig3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01196-7

You may wish to think about the main growing season in the Northern half of the world.

Excellent, finally your sharing a link with something reasonable we can agree on.

From your very link, in the Abstract,
"Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations is the main driver of global warming due to fossil fuel combustion."


Fig 3 quite clearly shows a horrific increase in CO2 levels from last century to early this century, it just shows the natural seasonality of it due to the growing seasons in the northern hemisphere which was never in doubt.



And if you look at Fig 4, this shows the different scenarios of where we are headed on CO2 by mid century.



You can to read about the different scenario’s here,
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-n ... explained/

This graph gives you another view of the same scenarios but in terms of annual emissions.

[renewablejohn]

Nowty You see there is very little point in me posting this sort of stuff as the conclusions you jump to are totally different to mine. From the article I gathered that compared to the actual data all the models where so significantly wrong its hardly worth bothering with them which just confirms my opinion. However the real reason for posting was the actual data in Fig 3 which I find quite fascinating. My take from fig 3 CO2 is not a problem as in the main plant growing season of JJA the planet despite all the efforts of mankind can still stabilise the north of the planet to the same low level throughout the planet very similar to the earlier one. Even the peaksfor JJA are in the same places. So how can high summer temperatures be anything to do with CO2 when CO2 is at its lowest. What I am also intrigued about is the summer to winter spread on the old data its only 3ppm but the new data it 9ppm which just goes to show without plants in the winter mankind can really screw up the planet. It also goes to show farm animals are not a problem as historically we had 25% more animals then we do today (exclude chickens as that just screws up the figures with so little meat per bird)

[nowty]

So how can high summer temperatures be anything to do with CO2 when CO2 is at its lowest.

Because its summer and the CO2 level is higher than last summer, which was higher than the year before, etc, etc, going back decades.
Its just a wild guess though.

[Marcus]

Sorry RJ, but...

From the article I gathered that compared to the actual data all the models where so significantly wrong its hardly worth bothering with them which just confirms my opinion.

No. The models are not "wrong" they come with large uncertainty budgets, your above statement demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between uncertainty in modelling of a vastly complex, chaotic system and being "wrong". The article is suggesting ways to improve (i.e. reduce the uncertainty) in the models.

However the real reason for posting was the actual data in Fig 3 which I find quite fascinating. My take from fig 3 CO2 is not a problem as in the main plant growing season of JJA the planet despite all the efforts of mankind can still stabilise the north of the planet to the same low level throughout the planet very similar to the earlier one.

No. Your interpretation of the fig 3 is demonstrably incorrect: the CO2 concentration for the summer months 2004-13 (i.e. when it's at its lowest) is still as high or higher than even the winter concentration 1890-1989.

Even the peaksfor JJA are in the same places. So how can high summer temperatures be anything to do with CO2 when CO2 is at its lowest.

Err.. because its SUMMER - that's when temperatures are highest.

What I am also intrigued about is the summer to winter spread on the old data its only 3ppm but the new data it 9ppm which just goes to show without plants in the winter mankind can really screw up the planet.

Not quite sure i understand what you're saying here, but to be sure, the more living plants (especially trees) we have, the better off we'll be, and yes, in the winter when the plants are largely dormant, the CO2 will rise more quickly now.

It also goes to show farm animals are not a problem as historically we had 25% more animals then we do today (exclude chickens as that just screws up the figures with so little meat per bird)

Well i don't really know how many farm animals we had historically - we might've had more per capita than now (maybe), but there were far fewer of us. And vastly more trees to absorb their emmissions.

Edit: nowty pipped me at the post on the summer point

[richbee]

Nowty You see there is very little point in me posting this sort of stuff as the conclusions you jump to are totally different to mine. From the article I gathered that compared to the actual data all the models where so significantly wrong its hardly worth bothering with them which just confirms my opinion. However the real reason for posting was the actual data in Fig 3 which I find quite fascinating. My take from fig 3 CO2 is not a problem as in the main plant growing season of JJA the planet despite all the efforts of mankind can still stabilise the north of the planet to the same low level throughout the planet very similar to the earlier one. Even the peaksfor JJA are in the same places. So how can high summer temperatures be anything to do with CO2 when CO2 is at its lowest. What I am also intrigued about is the summer to winter spread on the old data its only 3ppm but the new data it 9ppm which just goes to show without plants in the winter mankind can really screw up the planet. It also goes to show farm animals are not a problem as historically we had 25% more animals then we do today (exclude chickens as that just screws up the figures with so little meat per bird)

One of the problems with fig 3 is that the scales are misleading - the left hand side uses 312 - 315 in shades of blue, then the scale changes from 385 to 394 for the right hand side, but starting with almost the same shade of blue.
So the summer months were 312 to 315 and are now 385 ish

[renewablejohn]

Nowty And there lies your problem. I give you Fig 3 to discuss which are actual figures broken down into the four seasons as seasonal variation is so great. Then look specifically at the summer months of JJA when the natural cycle due to plants makes the planet stable again in CO2. The spread between the two time periods ie 120 years is only 73 which does not fit your agenda so you put up another graph which is totally meaningless as it does not distinguish between seasons and in the period of 40 years an increase of 80 bearing in mind we are talking parts per million and that its only 0.04% of the atmosphere.