Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap »

Posted by: JessicaLaurie 2 months, 2 weeks ago

6.3

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 78

Propped: 48

Comments: 5

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

A topflight science brainbox at Cambridge University has weighed into the ever-louder and more unruly climate/energy debate with several things that so far have been mostly lacking: hard numbers, willingness to upset all sides, and an attempt to see whether the various agendas put forward would actually stack up.

Read Full Story at theregister.co.uk

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 5

0%
CHAM2 months, 2 weeks ago

Jessica
An interesting post. But:
The graphs show that the PPM of CO2 has risen from 320 to 380 since 1965. And recognizable is the old Al Gore Hockey stick curve. And that upward spiral sure looks impressive.
But the 60 PPM gain is actually just 6/1000th of 1%. It is a dramatic increase graphically ( Visually ) but as a percentage factor - "It aint much".
And the real question is - How much is attributable to human factors?
Another thing not noted is that horizontial scale is basically an average of the 1000 year horizontial cells.
And what has been the effect on the temperature of the earth during this time represented on the scale? Would it surprise you to know that during that time scale - while the CO2 level appears to be static - Earth went throught the "Little Ice Age".
I would encourage the reader to google "Heinrich Events" for a more in-depth look at the temperature fluctuations and events that bound them.
Reply
3 Replies
- JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
  - 0%
    CHAM2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    John
    60/1,000,000 = .00006 or as I put it an increase of 6/1000th of 1%.
    What I meant was the increase of the CO2 in the air. so the statement is true.
    You are talking of the increase from 320 to 380 = 60 and 60/320 = 18.75% or an increase of 18.75% increase over the measured figure of 320.
    By the way 320/1,000,000 = .00032 or .032 % PPM in our air.
    380/1,000,000 = .00038 or .038% or .038 % PPM in our air
    The difference of .038% and .032% = .006% or 6/1000th of 1 percent.
    But there are two ways of looking at most anything.
    A glass with 50ml water with a capacity of 100ml can be looked at as either half empty or half full.
    My point was how it had been illustrated in the "Graph".
    And as to whether that is significant or not, I don't think either I or you know. I haven't seen any data to measure it against. That's why I mentioned the Little Ice Age and the graph depicting a very stable CO2 PPM during the event.
    
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
0%
CHAM2 months, 2 weeks ago

And what I didn't see is a discernable change in the CO2 level, when coming out of that Little Ice Age, i e, if the increasing CO2 level causes warming, why doesn't the exit from the LIA show a "hockey stick curve" when coming out of that LIA event?
I don't know whether Global Warming is occurring because of human pollution, but I do know that World temperature has fluctuated severly several times in Earth's history, before mankind could have had any effect, and oddly enough, those giant temperature swings back then weren't always accompanied by significantly increased or decreased CO2 levels.
My guess is that humans have some effect, but I believe the preponderance of cause is not because of human pollution.
I sure would like to get into some serious discussion about this because I think whether or not it is human caused, we humans are going to suffer, either because of the politicans or the environmental effects.
Reply