 | ivan on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | Hifast on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | tom0mason on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
| tom0mason on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | BoyfromTottenham on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | Curious George on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | pochas94 on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | JB on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | oldbrew on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | Pablo on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
 | uwe.roland.gross on NOAA on water vapor – 20… |
| oldbrew on UHI May Account For Half Of Cl… |
 | stpaulchuck on Global energy demand to double… |
| stpaulchuck on Putting a Cap on Heat Hys… |
| stpaulchuck on UHI May Account For Half Of Cl… |
.
.
One for the communication specialists.
by Judith Curry
How can the fundamental disagreement about the causes of climate change be most effectively communicated?
View original post 66 more words
Easy:
“They’re wrong”
OK, but it’s not much of a presentation
JC: My specific motivation for this post is to encapsulate this disagreement in a single .ppt slide.
The problem is people – we simply hate there not being a cause, and in particular a cause we cannot affect.
And then people with pre-existing beliefs leap on science if it appears to support that belief. Swathes of the Left “believe” in global warming because it proves capitalism is evil, not because they have thoroughly examined the science.No doubt we sceptics have the same problem.
Until the warming goes away, the world will split into two or more camps.
“Until the warming goes away”
Be careful what you wish for…
Peace by Piece
A principled division of unity is based mathematically on both irrational and imaginary numbers.
√(Φ-φ) = √(-φΦ) = i
√(φ-Φ) = √(φΦ) = 1
Stability trumps both reckless fracture and forced unity.
ΦΦ-1 = -Φ = (Φ-1)(Φ+1)
ΦΦ+1 = Φ√5 = (Φ-i)(Φ+i)
φφ+1 = φ√5 = (φ-i)(φ+i)
φφ-1 = φ = (φ-1)(φ+1)
The Stability Blessing
Stablest: Polarize stable eyes.
Stay blessed polar eyes: Stabilize.
Chamberlain
Came crawling from Munich
With one piece of paper
He waved at the camera
Peace in our time
Oh thank you Herr Hitler
Tell that to the Polish
Tell that to the Jews
– Robyn Hitchcock
The way I see it….
The bottom line is that at the end of the LIA CO2 levels were very low compared to what is needed for life to flourish. CO2 level for this period were an anomaly! Why should we wish to return to it?
As the planet has warmed out of the LIA due to increase solar radiance, CO2 levels quite naturally rose. As the oceans warmed and land defrosted CO2 was released, and the planet began to re-green those previously frozen area. This re-greening was nature playing catch-up with the warming and rising CO2 level. (IMO The greening lagged the CO2 increase.)
For more than a hundred years this re-greening sucked-up the increasing CO2, resulting in a maintaining, or very slightly increasing, global CO2 levels. As vegetative growth reaches saturation levels globally (and we’re not there yet) then the CO2 levels rise a little faster than the biosphere can use it, hence the current minor uplift in CO2.
All that humans have done is add a minuscule amount to the CO2 levels, and thus, in a minor way, added to accelerated the re-greening of the planet.
IMO CO2 level at 280ppm is not the place to be, this planet should be 600 to 1000ppm to make life so much easier, and (probably) kill-off all UN funded hunger relief programs.
First: define climate change.
Further to my comment above (which is a broad generality of my thinking) is this quote from your https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/ page.
The warming is natural and solar driven, the CO2 rise is just a consequence of it and not manmade.
CO2 is absolutely essential to keeping humanity alive. Plants take up CO2 and emit O2. Humans breath in O2 and breath out CO2.