I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

The global weather is really complex, with many confounding factors.  There isn't a simple mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature.  Nobody should expect there to be one.

Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; one should look into upgoing thermal radiation, water vapor and saturation topics as well, Planck and Schwarzschild curves.

So it can't be described that simply.  What's the problem?

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, but the magnitude seems to be greatly exaggerated by some scientists, and in particular by many well-meaning but ignorant activists these days.

I don't see an ad-hominem attack gets you anywhere.  The climate has certainly warmed in the last few decades.  All the predictions had huge error margins on them.  Nobody predicted exact values for warming.

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. I downloaded the UK Metoffice forecast for monthly average CO2 concentrations at NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa over 2020 that was made long before the COVID-19 effect was anticipated, and compared these figures to actual 2020 measurement data from the Mauna Loa lab. Surprising or not, but the differences between forecasted and measured values were similar to previous years, and the measurement results also correlated well with previous year. To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; since carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas with seasonal fluctuations in the atmosphere observable in real time, there seems to be no logic in claims that COVID-induced reduction shall be observable in the distant future. Anyone can repeat such tests.

Or maybe your unstated assumptions about how much COVID-19 would affect global emissions are wrong.

Aivar Usk: 


Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. 

One needs to distinguish science, knowledge of natural matters, from action to address phenomena.

Say, there is a big ozone hole over Antarctica, and it is getting bigger and starting to affect some inhabited parts of the planet in South America because of the intensity of the ultraviolet radiation. We know CFCs affect ozone. We don't actually know that anthropogenic CFCs are causing the ozone hole, but we do know that whatever CFCs are up there won't be helping close it.

We can wait until we know. The hole will likely carry on getting bigger and bigger in the meantime. Or we can agree not to emit CFCs into the atmosphere any more. No more Freon in fridges.

The hole starts reducing. And still is. 

The trick is to devise the interventions and put them into practice.

Say, someone presented to our 19thc medical practice with a growing lump in his belly. We can say “well, we don't really know what causes such lumps; let's wait until science tells us a bit more.” Or we can cut it out. If we did the latter, with appropriate antiseptic practices, the patient would have had a greater chance of surviving for longer. 

I'm glad you agree that global warming is real and some of it is likely to be anthropogenic. What do you propose to do about it? We are already a few decades down the line. We can carry on dithering until we “know” enough scientifically to please all those who want certainty. Or we can do straightforward stuff now. As we did with the ozone hole. It is perfectly “fair” to ask people for their best guesses. 

Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

First, not all greenhouse gases are CO2. Second, what “temperature” are you talking about? There are lots of them. Third, missing correlation does not necessarily exclude causation; an effect might well be lost in the noise generated by confounding factors. 

Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; 

Um, are you saying that greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat in the biosphere? 
 

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, 

I am glad we agree that the issue is real.

What would you actually propose to do about it, and why?

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. 

…….

 

 To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; 

Don't you need to know the reduction in burned fossil fuels in 2020? Where did you find that figure, and is it trustworthy? Do you know, for example, how much China burned? 

You lot can argue as much as you like, but it will not change the likelihood that the Earth is probably entering one of its 10,000 year climate change cycles. Panic on this scale is also likely to be fruitless and lead to premature death through coronaries beside the possible drowning, burning, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions, frostbite, CO2 poisioning, civil unrest … have I missed anything?

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a certain amount of evidence of likely changes buried in the fossil fuels.

Then this is conjecture, a bit like the chap up in Scotland who has built his own Ark…. it won't float because he hasn't nailed any panels on it! but it has aroused the interest of his local council.

Legh

Something I realised a while back is that attempting to persuade somebody that they are wrong on something that matters to them is utterly futile.  It's not even worth trying.

It's one of those oddities of human psychology.  The more evidence you present to somebody to show that they are wrong, the more strongly they hold onto their belief.  The evidence that you are producing is obviously false, and is part of the conspiracy to decieve them.  And because you have to make up false information to support your case, it follows that their belief must be the right one.

That's how conspiracy theories keep going, no matter how much evidence there is against them, or how absurd they seem to everybody who isn't in on the conspiracy.

So I think it's time I abandoned this whole thread.

Don't get frustrated Simon because others have come to a different conclusion to you. The facts remain that the planet has been warming since the little ice age back in 1650 and CO2 started to rise 300 years later so cannot possible be the driving force of our current warm spell. Enjoy the warmth now, as were coming to the end of our inter-glacial period.?

And if you want to know who started the environmental green madness.

Maurice Strong and his Danish wife are the source.

Wayback Machine (archive.org)

Legh Richardson: 
 

Then this is conjecture, a bit like the chap up in Scotland who has built his own Ark…. it won't float because he hasn't nailed any panels on it! but it has aroused the interest of his local council.

Legh

Someone should tell the Scotsman that Sea Level rise is only 1.3mm per year and in a straight line, as it has been for the past 100 years. 

Simon Barker: 
 

So it can't be described that simply.  What's the problem?

I would recommend to let dr. Howard Cork Hayden, professor emeritus of physics at University of Connecticut explain to you what the problem is. It would be interesting to hear if anyone could point out where he is wrong in this 54 minute presentation:

I don't see an ad-hominem attack gets you anywhere.  The climate has certainly warmed in the last few decades.  All the predictions had huge error margins on them.  Nobody predicted exact values for warming.

I was not intending any ad-hominem when suggesting that most of the activists are not knowledgeable about climate science; it has been my personal experience that certain concepts are simply parroted in media without understanding of any underlying physics. In an ideal world this would work - one should be able to trust the scientists. In case of climate science, opinions of some scientists are politically amplified while those of others are muffled.

Regarding predictions: in addition to overblown output of most climate models, there have been many literal crises predictions and almost all have been wrong:

https://extinctionclock.org/

Legh Richardson: 
 

You lot can argue as much as you like, 

Thank you.

 

but it will not change the likelihood that the Earth is probably entering one of its 10,000 year climate change cycles. 

What is that likelihood? What is your reasoning?

There is a by-now measureable anthropogenic contribution to phenomena which make the biosphere warmer. Even supposing the biosphere is in a warming cycle (as I take it you suppose), which may well affect humanity in various deleterious ways, is there any argument for continuing to contribute to making it worse?