Kevin Adamson

Does temperature effect C02, or does C02 effect temperature ? This seems to be the main point that cannot be resolved.I have seen all the charts "proving" both points.Have read reports from various so called experts both for and against and still after years of debate are no further down the road.
As any of you who have read my short posts on the subject will know I lean on the side of "Its a load of Hokum" and nothing I have read has been a strong enough case for me to change my mind.
Anyway ,apparentley GW is on hold for 20 years or so ,fossil fuels should be all but depleated by then or at least down to a level where other forms of power will be more viable.I can see this problem if there is one sorting itself out,Mother nature has looked after herself for millions of years do you really think we can change all her work in a generation ?
By the by what was the CO2 level 650,000 years ago?

Akria

According to the EPICA Dome C ice core, about 186 ppmv.

As for global warming being 'on hold', I can't say I've heard anything of this myself - the two most recent studies I can remember both predict that temperatures will begin to rise quickly again from 2010 or roundabouts after a plateau until the end of this decade.

Interestingly, despite the cooling effect of a fairly strong La Nina, 2007 was the second warmest year on record, both globally and in the UK.

That La Nina carried on into this year, causing the cold spell at the beginning, and despite that the globe nonetheless reportedly had the warmest March on record.
It is predicted that 2008 will still be a top-ten year (being 0.37 degrees above the 1961-1990 average), albeit the coolest since 2000, which it is thought it will be 0.13 degrees Celsius above.
This is despite predictions that the La Nina will carry on through the year, a La Nina of similar strength to the one which affected 2000 so much.

Regarding the cold start to this year, some information can be gleaned from the NCDC.

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

g hall

Warmest years on record and how far are we going back well this NASA page goes back 120 years
NASA - 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

Not a very broad dataset is it

and the Met Office
Met Office: News release

160 years and note who funds the Met Office any vested interest at all?

It's just a shame that accurate records weren't kept earlier so we could truly compare

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Akria

There are datasets going back further.
The Hadley Centre's HadCET record, although it covers only a small region, goes back almost three and a half centuries.

And, of course, there are the ice core records, including the Law Dome.
And tree rings.
And sediments.
And corals.
And boreholes.
And many other proxies used to reconstruct temperature.

There is an interesting list of such reconstructions on this page.
I advise you to have a look at some of them.

Edit: as for the point about the Met Office and vested interests, I would argue that the government would do far better to deny climate change than support it.

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

g hall

To reconstruct a theoretical temperature
350 years sounds a lot to a human life span of 70 odd years but in the life of the earth it is a twinkling of an eye

and then draw my own conclusions along with other evidence

You cannot help but have noticed that VED is now based on CO2 emissions and for cars that are basic runabouts the amount of tax collected has risen considerably of course this is not a green tax it's just an excuse to ramp up the take again
BTW did you know that buses receive a rebate on VED even though they are some of the most polluting vehicles on the road

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Akria

I am aware of that, which is why I then mentioned the proxies which are not based on instrumental data.

Is there anything else you are supposed to do?

I have commented on the 'green taxes' before.
And buses have lower per capita emissions.
Bus sources

Also, this would seem to counter any idea that it's all about taxes. Indeed, this would open up a new area of economic activity if it were to go ahead.
BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back personal carbon credits

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

g hall

Yes I remember your comments about "green taxes" and it still makes me chuckle

Their word is "estimates"
and as for the hypothetical solitary passenger yes he should get all the "credit" no mention of the amount of particulates which many diesel engines emit which are proven carcinogenic agents


No it's all about taxes and bear in mind that if you are against ID cards then carbon credits require almost as much detail about your life as ID cards do
It's typical NULAB control freakery and the setting up and administration costs will be horrendous so MORE TAXES
I believe I may have said this before you need some real life experience

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Westcountryman

Here's something that shows recent 'green' initiatives to be nothing more than gimmicks:

Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’ - Times Online

So, you can take your green taxes and shove them. Go and tax public transport, not cars.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Besoeker

I think that there are a number of sweeping generalisations in the article and a number of points that are glossed over.
“Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures."
Plausible on the surface. A bottom of the range new Mondeo would do slightly better. But if the shop is 3 miles away even as a round trip, much of the distance from home would be with a cold engine with much higher emissions. If the distance is shorter, the specific emissions would be worse. And that's for a modern car in good tune. Then, I wonder just how many walk 3 miles to shop?

"Catching a diesel train is now twice as polluting as travelling by car for an average family,"
Fine, but what about single occupancy cars? It's quite common. Four people travelling might occupy four cars. That would make the cars twice as polluting as the train.

"As the man from Ryanair says, cows generate more emissions than aircraft. "
That rather ignores the source of the gasses they emit.

"The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual’s carbon emissions"
One sixth. What about the other five sixths if you want to tackle carbon emissions? (not that they are actually carbon emissions)

In short, I think the article makes selective use of facts of dubious relevance.

Clippo

From the link:-
later:-

(my bold)

So how many people can a Sprinter train carry when full ? 100 ? 200?

Suppose for the sake of argument it is 100. To do a proper comparative emissions budget, one should include the emissions of the other potential 90 travellers or more travelling by road.

With regards to the 'meat & dairy' products consumption arguments, this is a hoary old perennial fallacy.
Apart from the energy costs of producing & transporting them, the natural emissions of 'cattle' are just part of the 'normal' carbon cycle. Whereas, with transport of any sort, the emissions are from a carbon source that has been sequestered from the normal carbon cycle for millions of years.

That, in a nutshell is the current problem leading to AGW