« Croeso Ifan | Main | A rebel without applause »

October 28, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Patrick interesting piece from New Scientist. They do go from GHG theory to the temperature rise must all be the result of human activity, specificaly CO2. What I do not understand is increased human CO2, yet no warming this century.

This suggests that something (New scientist talks of feedbacks) has balanced this off against the modeled increases in temperature. I am not aware that the climate models predicated this plateau. What happens if that something continues?

If you accept AGW then it is easy to predict the effects. This is what most scientists seem to be doing. This gives scary scenarios, yet little in the way of concrete evidence that the Climate can be managed by controlling CO2.

At this site are some numbers

This suggests that "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)."

The UK contribution is about 2%. So the UK contribution to the green house effect is 0.00234%. If we reduce UK CO2 by 80% then this goes down to 0.00468% a reduction of 0.001872%. My question is what effect does this have on climate? (Hope the arithmatic is ok).

If HMG is convinced that an 80% reduction in UK CO2 emissions is required, then surely they have some figures to show what its effect would be on the climate?

What would happen if this UK reduction itself was balanced off by some natural feedback?

I commended Paul Flynn in an earlier post for his efforts in Wales wrt to flooding. I think that local efforts are more important than grand gestures that add burdens to our economy with little or no certainty of success. Do HMG have measures for success, not just reduction targets but climate effect targets?

Indeed Dr Roger Pielke Snr recently commented on this

His poisition on climate is outlined here

I am concerned that we do not know enough about what is happening. I know we have people saying it is the end of world yet even the IPCC has revised some of its predictions (notably sea level rise).

Predictions aside the data this year show we have an apparent cooling (or no-warming), arctic winter ice recovering and record cold temperatures in the US. Where does this fit in?

Focusing on CO2 is easy for politicians as it gives them a deceptively simple target. Are they aiming at the right target?

(Aside, if it does get colder will they repeal the act and then ecourage people to drive SUVs by law!?:))



Had a read of the telegraph link, thank you.

I understand that you are not denying GW but you are disputing the role of CO2.

Please read small extract from new scientist.

"People are causing the change by burning nature's vast stores of coal, oil and natural gas. This releases billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year, although the changes may actually have started with the dawn of agriculture, say some scientists.

The physics of the "greenhouse effect" has been a matter of scientific fact for a century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the Sun's radiation within the troposphere, the lower atmosphere. It has accumulated along with other man-made greenhouse gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

If current trends continue, we will raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations to double pre-industrial levels during this century. That will probably be enough to raise global temperatures by around 2°C to 5°C. Some warming is certain, but the degree will be determined by feedbacks involving melting ice, the oceans, water vapour, clouds and changes to vegetation."


Paul Flynn wrote:
"The great mass of MPs are convinced of the reality of global warming and the need for urgent action."

That maybe true, though you didn't answer my questions.

GW maybe happening, the question was can CO2 control it? Is CO2 a thermostat? Have we got the right culprit? Where is the evidence?

This is not about Global Warming Denial, it is about the causes of 'climate change' and whether HMG is targetting the correct cause -CO2 emissions.

Thanks for the link Patrick.
Worth reading from The Telegraph 2006 No Warming Post 1998

And the maths (2008) No Statistically Significant Warming Since 2000 at

Note I should have used the qualifier 'statistically significant' in the phrase "We have had no *statistically significant* warming this century despite an increase in CO2"

Still swapping Temperature charts doesn't explain the cause. So, do you have evidence that CO2 is the actual cause?



Eight of the warmest years on record around the world have taken place in the last decade, figures released today show.

Paul Flynn

West2, your views were represented in the vote. There are global warmers deniers in the Commons. Led by the ineffable Phillip Davies they amassed 5 votes against nearly 500. The great mass of MPs are convinced of the reality of global warming and the need for urgent action.


To partly answer my own question, it seems Peter Lilley did say that there was no cost/benefit analysis made for handicapping shipping and aviation.

Was the snow falling, the first in London for 70 years in October I understand, while the Bill was being debated an omen?



Well, let's see how this 'Climate Change Bill' works in practice?

Did you ask what effect these measures would actualy have on the climate? How much will it cost?

What happens, as some seem to suggest, if we enter a cooling phase? We have had no warming this century despite an increase in CO2.

Is CO2 a thermostat?


Huw O'Sullivan

2 blog updates in one day.
Paul how are people supposed to keep up with you.

I suppose that despite the fact that parliamentary rules were broken, that the super duper deal for capitalists of the first order will stand without amendment or renegotiation?

The comments to this entry are closed.