IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: CO2 is good
Topic Summary:
Created On: 06 June 2013 08:27 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06 June 2013 08:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 863
Joined: 19 July 2002

New twist to the CO2 saga!

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...ke-earth-greener.html

Best regards

Roger
 06 June 2013 08:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Interesting.

I found another twist a few days ago;

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-g...arbon-dioxide.html#jCp

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 06 June 2013 11:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 863
Joined: 19 July 2002

CO2 good CFCs bad. Where's Geoff Benn when you need him ;-)

Best regards

Roger
 06 June 2013 08:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: rogerbryant
CO2 good CFCs bad. Where's Geoff Benn when you need him ;-)

Best regards

Roger
To say in isolation that CO2 is good is simple mis-information, it does of course say:.
However, it remains unclear whether the effect can counter any negative consequences of global warming, such as the spread of deserts.

From my favourite skepticalscience.com: CO2 Plant food
An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.


Please don't expect me to spend much time on this forum, there is already so much good main-stream peer-reviewed science, and the debunking of so many myths (including the above), in the following thread:
E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 07 June 2013 11:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Good old Geoff, still fighting the good fight, like the last Japanese soldier still manning his trench on some desert island in the Pacific. Nice to see you 'debunking the myths' of these *brand new* research results which cast yet more doubt on the religion of climate alarmism.
 07 June 2013 01:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 539
Joined: 17 September 2001

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

I suspect you could come up with a similar argument based on the correlation of global temperatures against the sales of vinyl records. But it wouldn't prove anything useful.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 07 June 2013 01:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Emotional language and talk of 'proof'... I'll go with these guys:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusConsensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
And apparently the 3% are not actually very expert...

Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 08 June 2013 07:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Originally posted by: ectophile
Correlation doesn't prove causation..

Agreed re the speculative CFC-warming research. However, absence of correlation *does* prove absence of causation. There's been no warming this century despite over 1/3 of all the CO2 ever emitted by man having been emitted over the same period.

Geoff wrote: I'll go with these guys....

Geoff, you're talking to engineers here. Engineers look at the raw data and measurements and draw their own conclusions - we don't take other people's word for anything. Least of all those who are profitting from the global warming scam. It doesn't matter if 97% of rent seeking climate scientists declare that man made CO2 is causing dangerous warming; the actual temperature measurements say it ain't:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995

Geoff, for how many more years does that line have to bump along showing negligible warming before you move onto a different scare story? How many more years can the multi billion dollar climate alarm industry stagger on without any warming?
 08 June 2013 07:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19463
Joined: 23 March 2004

How many more years can the multi billion dollar climate alarm industry stagger on without any warming?


Ohhh - for a good few decades yet, and don't forget if you ain't a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 12 June 2013 08:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 203
Joined: 10 February 2012

Nice to have Geoff back, I was missing the "you have got to be kidding" moments.

Weather in UK still desparately disappointing, how long must I wait till it gets better Geoff?
 13 June 2013 08:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 539
Joined: 17 September 2001

Climate scientists switched from calling it "global warning" to "climate change" several years ago, because it created the wrong impression.

We were expecting the UK to turn into a tropical paradise. Instead it's become clear that putting more energy into the weather system creates more unstable weather. Which seems to be just what we're getting here at the moment as I look out of the window.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 15 June 2013 06:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: ectophile
suspect you could come up with a similar argument based on the correlation of global temperatures against the sales of vinyl records. But it wouldn't prove anything useful.

It may prove you were good at correlations.
Regards.
 16 June 2013 11:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

"But in his 2013 book "The Future," Gore writes bluntly: "I was wrong." He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions."

I wonder how much $$$ he's making this time around.

Regards.
 16 June 2013 07:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1040
Joined: 05 September 2004

Westonpa has mentioned Murray Salby before in the climate change debate. My attention was drawn to him by Luboš Motl's Reference Frame Blog.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013...2-is-integral-of.html

Murray Salby is theorising that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere related to the integral of a temperature anomaly, multiplied by a fudge factor.

"Presentation Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded

CO2 concentration is definitely an integral effect and relates to the underlying phenomena somehow (including human emissions), but does what he is saying lead us to progress in thinking more productively about exactly how this is occuring?

What he seems to be saying that when the average earth temperature (with soil moisture being of secondary influence) is above a certain reference temperature, net CO2 is emitted from the earths surface, and when it is less, net CO2 is absorbed. He doesn't say how he chooses his reference temperature from which to measure the temperature anomaly. Which basically means (as he admits) there are considerable intrinsic uncertainties to his analysis.

He uses the air temperture measuements as a proxy for ground surface temperature measurements. Ground surface temperatures vary a great deal more between night and day than air temperature. I suspect the size of these variations between night and day (the very high frequency element) has an influence to play on net CO2 absorption or emission as well.

He says this occurs on all timescales and analyses the ice core data using frequency domain mathematical analysis to show this.

His main conclusion in this regard seems to be that CO2 concentrations are systematically underestimated in a way that can be mathematically related to ice core depth, at both the high frequency end (due to diffusion) and at the low frequency end (due to non-conservative effects he doesn't explain).

According to his analysis there is a sort of band pass filter effect going on that changes with ice core depth, which leads to a systematic underestimation of our reconstructions of the historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is very hard to discount this possibility without understanding the physics and chemistry of the situation very well and showing the effects he refers to (non-conservative effects and diffusion effects) are small.

However does the intrayear variations, rising and falling as they do throughout the year in cyclic form, follow this law as well? He leaves analysis of this out.

Is there anyway of testing his ideas on short timescales? Any thoughts?

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 01 July 2013 10:41 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



htsopelas

Posts: 1
Joined: 01 July 2013

It is very interest!
IET » Energy » CO2 is good

Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.