Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > costly anti-CO2 measures, have cut temperature by how much ?

@EM We've spent quite a lot of money across the globe reducing CO2
So how much non-warming has that bought us ?

If we'd done nothing would the temp be say 0.5C warmer than today's mean ?

(ie in the normal world you do cost/benefit analysis
eg we spent £X trillion say on these nuclear plants or solar or wind
, but that has saved up how much warming that we would have had if we had built coal power stations instead )

Oct 15, 2018 at 2:39 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@EM replied Oct 14, 2018 at 11:22 PM

There is a lag of about 25 years before most of the warming effect of any CO2 concentration shows in the temperatures

The 1C we have now is the price of the CO2 released up to 1993.

The CO2 released between 1993 and the present will produce a rise of 1.6C at about 2043.

If we had stabilised at the 1993 level, 360ppm, we would be 0.6C cooler than we are today.

We are following a path about halfway between RCP6.0 and RCP8.5.

If we had followed RCP 8.5 I estimate that we would now be at 425ppm instead of 400ppm and would be 0.25C warmer.

Oct 15, 2018 at 2:42 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

So @EM says that If we hadn't done any anti CO2 measures, 2018's average CO2 would be 425ppm

And 25 year delay
So that suggests that what temperature we got in 1993 was set in 1968
That if CO2 had NOT increased 1993 would be similar to 1968

So EM doesn't seem to accept that any warming comes from us coming out of the last ice age ?

Perhaps someone can comment on that 25 year delay claim
Cos that makes it seem that if we build a coal power station instead of a nuclear one .. the molecules of CO2 released today from it , get to the upper atmosphere in days
yet hang around for 25 years before they bounce heat back from leaving the upper atmosphere.

Oct 15, 2018 at 2:48 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

EM confirms he doesn't believe in coming out of ice age natural warming
\\ We came out of the last glacial period 10,000 years ago,
stabilised for about 5000 years
and have been cooling for 5000 years.

Put together orbital changes, volcanoes, reduced solar insolation and other natural changes
and you get a continuation of that 5000 year long term cooling effect.

That downward trend turned into a warming in the latter 1800s .
This coincides with the rise in CO2 and matches what you would expect from the relevant physics. None of the other variables has changed.

Ask the physicists and they attribute the 1C rise in global temperature to 1.05C warming from CO2 and its feedbacks,
and 0.05C cooling from everything else. //

Oct 15, 2018 at 5:02 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The first thing is when previous IPCC reports were made
the line seemed to be their wanted there scientists to express an opinion that "more than half of warming" was due to CO2

As ever it doesn't matter about labelling individuals as physicist or scientists and then tallying their OPINIONS
.. cos what counts is what "Science says", not what "scientists say"

Oct 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen, I'm not sure how far this thread will go, but with it you have hit the nail on the head, so far as I am concerned.

I'm not a scientist, and I don't know whether man-made GHGs are responsible for some or all of the warming witnessed over the last century or two. I do question some of the certainty expressed and some of the dubious aspects of things like failure adequately to account for the UHI effect and Mann's hockey stick etc (I note his litigation against Steyn et al still seems to be going nowhere). More than that, I am concerned that the poor in our society should not be taxed and made to pay more for their energy than need be the case, especially if that extra cost achieves little or nothing with regard to controlling global warming; especially if that amounts to a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the already-rich; and and especially if some or all of that warming might in any event be more beneficial than harmful.


"Winter deaths in Scotland at highest level in 18 years"

"The number of people who died in Scotland last winter hit a 18-year high, new statistics have revealed.

There were 23,137 deaths between December 2017 and March 2018, according to the National Records of Scotland - the highest figure since 1999/2000.

It also revealed that the seasonal increase in mortality - the number of "additional" deaths in winter - was 75% greater than in 2016/17.

The main underlying causes of the deaths were influenza and pneumonia."

That's what a cold winter looks like. And this is what less extreme winters look like:

"Last winter's death total was the largest number since 23,379 deaths were recorded in 1999/2000.

Anne Slater, the chief executive of the NRS, said there was a long-term downward trend of winter deaths since the early 1950s."

Then there's the extraordinary costs the IPCC/UN seem to want the world to incur:

"Delingpole: ‘Who Drew It?’ Trump Queries IPCC’s $38.4 Trillion Ransom Note"

I provide that link simply for ease of reference, even though some alarmists will say it's rubbish. But there's no arguing about the sums the IPCC/UN want us to spend. Staggering amounts of money. Imagine the good that could be done with such amounts of money - poverty eradication; cheap, reliable energy; NHS funding; etc etc etc. All put at risk if a weak UK government succumbs to the climate hysteria and wastes a fortune trying to reduce our GHG emissions at great expense, while China et al happily increase their GHG emissions by many amounts more than our total emissions.


Oct 16, 2018 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Oct 17, 2018 at 11:18 AM Supertroll replies

@EM. I don't disapprove.
What I do not approve of is your constant changing of your definition of climate sensitivity
re CO2 to suit what particular argument you are having.
Your continued support of the hockey stick while now stating that the Earth's temperature took a dive in the time period usually identified as the LIA and so on.
Debates with you are not worth having.
You are losing substance.

Oct 17, 2018 at 1:26 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Mr Hodgson: you do not need to be a scientist to look at simple facts. The world has been cooling since the Holocene Optimum, when temperatures were up to 5degC higher than now. However, that cooling has not been steady; like so many things in nature, there is variability & fluctuation, something that rather too many seem somewhat eager to overlook. Hence, we had the Minoan warm period, after which it cooled a bit, before rising again to the Roman warm period (slightly cooler than the Minoan wp), then cooling again, before rising to the Mediaeval warm period, then cooling into the little ice age (which, conversely, EM appears to acknowledge). After the cooling, comes the warming; once more, not quite as warm as the previous warm period (so far) - but, like all things in this "science", the "scientists" use as their start-point an extreme in the cycle - in this case, the little ice age, conveniently overlooking the little fact that, if there had been no warming, we would still suffer years without summer, and the Thames would freeze for months on end.

Another arbitrary start-point is Arctic ice-cover, they decided should be from 1979/80, when - quelle suprise - the ice coverage was anomalously high! Such scare tactics has managed to fool a depressingly high number of people; whether it has really fooled politicians, or they have merely jumped on this band-wagon that just keeps on giving, we will see. Personally, I suspect that they will miraculously turn sceptical if the political wind changes.

Oct 17, 2018 at 1:41 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I suspect that they will miraculously turn sceptical if the political wind changes.

Oct 17, 2018 at 1:41 PM | Radical Rodent

They are, it has.

No votes, or money or glamour in it anymore.

Oct 17, 2018 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I would have thought @EM would have put his own comments here instead of over on the main thread.

Oct 19, 2018 at 6:38 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@EM just made an emphatic statement
.. Fortunately Mark checked it

@EM said "Before Cuadrilla started fracking on 15th October the list included no earthquakes in Lancashire. Since fracking began there have been seventeen."

Look a bit closer at your list:

2018/08/05 10:29:52.6 53.727 -2.343 9 1.0 BAXENDEN, LANCASHIRE

Stronger than any of the 17 since fracking began.
(scale 1.0 is of course a magnitude stronger than today’s 0.8)

Oct 26, 2018 at 9:05 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

In 132 AD, Chinese astronomer Zhang Heng created a seismometer. Just because today we've developed seismometers sensitive enough to detect traffic accidents, that doesn't mean it is a reason to ban cars.

So it is with fracking. It is demonstrably safe to do it. This is just the usual suspects who will use any means necessary to stop something that whiffs of industry.

Oct 27, 2018 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael. I not sure it is possible to entirely rule out the possibility that fracking could cause a strong seismic event. Waste water injection into disposal wells around the world (from India to Oklahoma) have generated quakes in excess of magnitude 5 causing structural damage. In terms of subsurface pressures there probably isn't much difference between a fracked well and one accepting waste water.

Oct 27, 2018 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

ST, I've also read that quakes that have happened were possibly due to irresponsible waste-water reinjection at sites already somewhat seismically volatile.
Obviously, somethings can never be ruled out entirely, (In the late 80's/ early 90's I worked for a company that out-sourced our Nuclear Magnetic Resonance analysis to the then Preston Polytechnic when a local Preston earthquake rendered their NMR instrument inoperable for a time.), but I maintain that the wealth of fracking data shows it to be OK when performed sensibly in areas not prone to large earthquakes. Though I have no direct industry knowledge, I've often read here at BH that fracking is not at all new in the UK, just fracking for hydrocarbons at this geological location.

Oct 27, 2018 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart


May 3, 2019 at 5:32 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen