From Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions, published by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, comes some good news:

Even including the USA whose emissions in 2008-2010 are 11 percent more than in 1990, the industrialised countries have on average reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 7.5 percent in the period 2008-2010, compared with 1990. Together they are well on course to achieve the [Kyoto] protocol, target of a collective average decrease in greenhouse gas emissions of 5.2 percent between 2008 and 2012 compared to the 1990 level.

Bet you didn’t know the Kyoto Protocol was a success, even without the U.S.

But then there’s the bad news:

Continuing growth in the developing nations and economic recovery in the industrialised countries drove the record-breaking 5.8 percent increase in global CO2 emissions to the all-time high of 33.0 billion tonnes, even though these have not returned to pre-recession levels in most industrialised countries. CO2 emissions went up in most of the major economies, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10 percent, 4 percent, 9 percent and 3 percent respectively.

Whole dreary report, including stats like “Since 2003, CO2 emissions in China have doubled, and in India they have increased by 60 percent,” is here.

Comments

  1. #1 Albert Douchestein
    September 21, 2011

    Psst. Psst. Hey douche boy. Plant food has been trailing temps for thousands of years.

    But thanx for the brilliant insight. Wow. We all feel smarter now.

    I guess they don’t teach the ideal gas law and concepts of partial pressure to class moron biology majors eh?

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    September 21, 2011

    Interesting psychology – facts about current CO2 emissions by humans elicit insults from the denialists.

    This one seems almost crazy enough to be locked up.

  3. #3 Yo Vince
    September 21, 2011

    Yo Vince. You said Nothing. Zero. Good science bro.

  4. #4 Barry
    September 21, 2011

    > Plant food has been trailing temps for thousands of years.

    I remember when trolls could offer up halfway-plausible arguments instead of decade-old retreads.

    > [...] they don’t teach the ideal gas law and concepts of partial pressure [...]

    Yes, I’m sure “Albert Douchestein” is a real person with real qualifications in this stuff, not some sad angry loner.

    > You said Nothing. Zero. Good science bro.

    Ah, irony.

  5. #5 ConnrJ
    September 22, 2011

    You guys are obviously missing the joke! douchestein is obviously engaging in some very witty and cutting satire by parodying the nonsensical retorts of the common denialists. It’s actually very, very funny.

  6. #6 Wow
    September 22, 2011

    No, that idiot keeps turning up with the same parroted insults like a five year old spoiled brat.

  7. #7 Neil Craig
    September 22, 2011

    Worth looking at a graph of CO2 levels with its flat year on year rise, allegedly producing a flat year on year pressure on temperature and the temperature graphs which look completely different.

    We worth it if you are scientifically inclined. Likely to be cenored if a warming alarmist.

  8. #8 Wow
    September 22, 2011

    Really? Flat year on year?

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    Flat year on year pressure would be because we’re not adding a lot of extra weight to the atmosphere compared to the mass it has already. But I note that you don’t show this either.

    And flat year on year temperature?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

    Looks like upward trend to me!

    Then again, you’re always running from thread to thread, site to site, crying about how the sky is falling.

    Alarmist.

  9. #9 GregH
    September 22, 2011

    I think Neil Craig is someone who is genuinely afraid that the “AGW Believers” might be right, and is grasping at straws to shore up his own shaky beliefs. But like the rest of us, he’s trying to find answers. Otherwise, why does he keep coming back to these forums and posting blatant denialist doctrine and previously debunked arguments? Neil, you’re obviously smart enough to write intelligent sentences – why don’t you take the time to rethink some of this stuff? In fact, why don’t you come over to the DARK SIDE, NEIL!1!

    (btw, I’m not, and never have been, your father.)

  10. #10 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    Mo, Neil tried to get a ticket to be an MP but got bugger all votes because he’s a nutcase.

    He’s now convinced by his failure to achieve manifest destiny that it is a plot by the liberal world to persecute him and keep him down.

    Expect some sort of “final solution to the liberal problem” from Whiner any day now…

  11. #11 Jim Sternhell
    September 23, 2011

    Time to test your knowledge of CO2/global warming.
    1)What is the dominant gas implicated in the greenhouse effect?
    2)What percentage of global CO2 emissions are the result of burning fossil fuels?
    3)Who stands to gain from Emissions Trading Schemes?
    4)How many significant errors are acceptable in the data, modelling or methodology of a theory before it becomes invalid?
    5)What do plants think of higher CO2 levels?
    6)The science is settled .

    And now for the answers.

    1) Water vapour is responsible for 90% of the apparent greenhouse effect. CO2 is a minor player.
    2) 3 % with 3% error . Vulcanism (remember there is more volcanic activity under the oceans), release from oceans, bush fires and other non human sources account for the other 97%.
    3) Climate scientists are enjoying the limelight.They are going from obscure boffins behind a computer to Fame,Fortune and Funding. Carbon traders, eg Al Gore stand to make billions if not trillions from trading a non-existent commodity that contributes no economic benefit. The United Nations gets an even bigger slice of the pie.
    4)None, of course. ANY significant discrepancy in the data, modelling or methodology and it is back to the drawing board. Ignoring data sets that disagree with the model or theory is scientific fraud. Very few theories stand the test of time.
    5)Plants just LOVE higher CO2. Many plants use significantly less water in transpiration at 1,000 ppm . Just think- higher crop yields in more arid conditions.CO2 is plant food. Kind of strange why the media do not wish to report this.
    6)”The science is settled” Now, fellow nerds, have you ever heard such an unscientific statement? REAL science is not settled because someone says it is, especially with something as complicated as the weather. REAL science encourages full and open debate with sharing of data. Refusal to debate the issue does NOT mean a theory is proved – it shows there is something to hide. Take note,the IPCC is NOT a scientific body, it is a political body of the UN. Take note, they refuse to further the scientific debate claiming “the science is settled.” The often quoted list of 4,000 scientists who believe in AGW contains only a small hand full(I think the number is 7) of ACTUAL climate scientists.

    Perhaps humans were placed on this earth to recycle the carbon buried beneath the earth during the Carboniferous Era.

  12. #12 Neil Craig
    September 23, 2011

    Wow says
    “Then again, you’re always running from thread to thread, site to site, crying about how the sky is falling.

    Alarmist.”

    Gosh I believe I am seeing an attempt at an insult by somebody somebody always running from thread to thread to not answer my points.

    And incidentally a little thought would show you that what I am saying is that the shy is NOT falling and that those shouting “catastrophe” are lying.

    Greg object to anybody “posting blatant denialist doctrine”. If he had a factual answer to it he would presumably give it.

  13. #13 Stu N
    September 23, 2011

    Jim, only questions 1) and 2) are really relevant.

    1) Water vapour makes up most of the greenhouse effect. However, you can’t make the climate change by arbitrarily adding water vapour to the atmosphere, because that H2O would shortly condense out as rain. Therefore the primary forcing comes from the gas that’s second on the list, carbon dioxide.

    2) Compared to natural sources, human emissions of CO2 are small. Does this mean that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is natural? No, of course not! In fact, humans emit twice as much CO2 as is necessary to explain the observed rise. The difference is because the oceans & terrestrial biosphere are able to absorb a proportion of the extra CO2.

    Questions 3) and 4) don’t make much sense. The theory is older than the concept of emissions trading and so the usefulness (or not) of such has no bearing on whether the theory is correct. 4) ignores the fact that climate science is an area of active research and so the best expounding of the theory will change with time.

    5) The ‘plant food’ meme has some truth… but how much? Is plant growth generally limited by CO2 levels, or by some other factor? Will potential benefits from higher CO2 levels be outweighed by the climatic effects, eg. potential greater occurrence of droughts in cereal-producing areas?

    6) Who said the science is settled, and what science were they referring to? References please ;-)

  14. #14 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    “5) The ‘plant food’ meme has some truth… but how much?”

    None.

    CO2 is plant food the way O2 is human food.

  15. #15 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    “Greg object to anybody “posting blatant denialist doctrine”.”

    Yes, this is correct and is necessary to actually discuss a subject. Denialists aren’t discussing or looking for answers, they’re denying.

    “If he had a factual answer to it he would presumably give it.”

    “It” being what? Your perceptions? There are no factual answers to the illusions of a diseased mind like yours.

    “what I am saying is that the shy is NOT falling and that those shouting “catastrophe” are lying”

    And the reason for that “lying”? “They’re eco Nazis trying to take over the world!!!!”. That’s chicken-little right there.

    You can say that the sky isn’t falling, but AGW is still real. Your insane ravings do not change the facts, they just make you boring and repetitive.

  16. #16 Stu N
    September 23, 2011

    “CO2 is plant food the way O2 is human food.”

    Interesting. I know that if you put plants in a controlled environment and ensure that CO2 is the limiting growth factor, you can make them grow faster by increasing CO2 levels. So, if you put children in a controlled environment and ensure that O2 is the limiting growth factor, you can make them grow faster by increasing O2 levels? I’d have thought it would just make them giddy and more easily combustible.

  17. #17 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    “So, if you put children in a controlled environment and ensure that O2 is the limiting growth factor, you can make them grow faster by increasing O2 levels?”

    Yes.

    Of course, after generations, these children will have blood like the tibetans that hold oxygen more efficiently.

    “I’d have thought it would just make them giddy and more easily combustible.”

    No, only if you’re going up to toxic levels (note: plants in a CO2 only atmosphere will die too).

    (since “dead” is rather a dampner of growth, this too is a bit of a problem)

  18. #18 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    PS, Stu, you can also call Water “plant food”. And human food too. In either case, if you have too little, then adding more enables either to grow, but if you just add water you can drown both.

    So, yes, O2 is plant food.

    Heck, O2 is plant food: http://www.s-cool.co.uk/gcse/biology/respiration/revise-it/aerobic-respiration-in-plants

  19. #19 Stu N
    September 23, 2011

    Look, all good points Wow, except the bit where you said there was no truth in the ‘plant food’ meme. There is a grain of truth in it, just not the truth some ‘sceptics’ want to believe there is.

    My point is that IMO the best answer to ‘CO2 is plant food’ is not ‘LOL no it isn’t’ but something along the lines of ‘Yes, plants use CO2, but CO2 is rarely the limiting factor on growth and unbridled emissions of CO2 will not turn out to be a good thing overall. Here’s why… [list of references, if you can be bothered]‘

  20. #20 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    There isn’t.

    O2 isn’t human food. CO2 isn’t plant food. Plants breathe in CO2 to photosynthesise. Photosynthesis creates sugars that is an energy source, that energy source being O2 to be combusted at the site where energy is needed.

    CO2 is no more plant food than O2 is human food.

    We don’t eat O2, we breathe it.

    Plants don’t eat CO2, they breathe it.

  21. #21 GregH
    September 23, 2011

    Neil, you occasionally have a valid point to make, and you obviously care about this subject. Why do you keep parroting denialist talking points that have been refuted many times over? It makes you look like someone who hasn’t done their homework, and makes it hard to take you seriously.

    Please go to skepticalscience.com and read up on how and why many of the claims you keep repeating don’t make much sense.

  22. #22 Al Douche
    September 23, 2011

    “Please go to skepticalscience.com and read up ”

    HAHA. You just exposed yourself as another one of ‘the gullibles’.

  23. #23 GregH
    September 23, 2011

    Yes, yes, I’m gulled by evidence every time. /farnsworth

  24. #24 Arctic Kitty
    September 23, 2011

    Gregh. How old are you? Good luck with 8th grade biology next year.

    John cook has been repeatedly SHREDDED as a lying conniving history revisionist in the blogosphere by real scientists.

    Put your head back in the sand now. Believe what makes you feel better.

  25. #25 GregH
    September 23, 2011

    “SHREDDED … in the blogosphere by real scientists.”

    Ok, I’m convinced!

  26. #26 Laughing at your kind
    September 23, 2011

    All Gullibles stand up and be counted!

    Jokes on you. Just like the last x number of false manufactured ‘crises’ .

    Time exposes your kind always.

    You might want to start clinging to a new and upcoming OMFG crisis. You’ll be ahead of the curve for the next inevitable horsesqueeze crisis.

    Repeat after me. OMFG we need to ……..

    Why do you NEED and CRAVE false drama?

    Or are you just that stupid and gullible?

  27. #27 Dan Satterfield
    September 24, 2011

    I am surprised you allow comments by the rabid political crowd. Nothing you can say will change the minds of authoritarians like that, so you really are just giving them a platform to spread their anger and ignorance.

    Feel sorry for them, yes since their response is based on fear, but you are not obligated to give them a voice. Editorial control is a good thing- it removes the ignorance and allows for a more informed discussion. It also forces those who want to participate to educate themselves.

    Just my two cents worth.

  28. #28 Dan the Gullible
    September 24, 2011

    Hello. My name is Dan. I think we should censor all people with common sense that make ME look stupid.

    Then I would feel better about myself. You know. With my anti plant food rhetoric and stuff and all and you know. Rage against the whatever.

    Thanx.
    -dan

  29. #29 Neil Craig
    September 25, 2011

    GregH if “Skeptical Science” a site whch feels it necessary to censor facts to maintain the warming lie represenmts the very highest standard of honesty to which warmists aspire I am not in the slightest surprised.

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/roger-pielke-sr-at-the-ss-com-a-dark-day-in-the-climate-science-debate/

  30. #30 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    Watts Up With That, “a site whch feels it necessary to censor facts”.

    There, corrected for accuracy.

    Of course, you could always go to where RPSr appeared in SkS and see whether that hatchet job at niggurath is actually correct.

    But then you’ll see that RPSr after saying that SkS were making an ad hom then ignored any and all requests to say where they existed and then plowed on with ad homs to hide.

    It was indeed a dark day for denialists.

  31. #31 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    “You might want to start clinging to a new and upcoming OMFG crisis.”

    You mean how changing from a fossil fuel energy production to a renewables will leave us all in the Dark Ages? Or how it’s all a scam to take Western Money and pour it into the third world? Or how it’s all a scam by the Western world to ensure that the third world is denied the money from a booming economy of fossil fuels?

    That sort of OMFG?

    Or are you just that stupid and gullible?

  32. #32 ianam
    September 26, 2011

    Now, fellow nerds, have you ever heard such an unscientific statement?

    Yes … everything you wrote, which is sophistry motivated by anti-scientific impulses. Some settled science: germs cause disease (but there are a lot of details to work out, and there are other causes as well), and human industrial activity causes global warming (but there are a lot of details to work out, and there are other causes as well).

  33. #33 ianam
    September 26, 2011

    “Please go to skepticalscience.com and read up ”

    HAHA. You just exposed yourself as another one of ‘the gullibles’.

    The gullibles are those who don’t go to the site because of what some denialist troll claimed about it. Gullible and cowardly.

  34. #34 ianam
    September 26, 2011

    anti plant food rhetoric

    Anyone who claims the CO2 can’t be bad because it’s a plant food is stupid; that’s the plain and obvious truth.

  35. #35 GregH
    September 26, 2011

    Neil C.: As you well know, Shub-Niggurath used to be a respectable harbinger of the End Times, or at least a pretty good boss in the game Quake. Ia! Ia!

    Roger Pielke, Sr., on the other hand, lacks that kind of gravitas. For all his claims of scientific objectivity, he’s an apologist for those who seek to undermine the science around climate change. So, while he doesn’t have the commanding presence of The Black Goat of the Woods With a Thousand Young, his grasp of science is apparently similar.

  36. #36 Lil Tard
    September 26, 2011

    HAw haw. witness liberals with time on their hands aka boredom. wOW. Look what they invented so they have a ‘purpose’!!! TArds. Aka libtRds.

  37. #37 Wow
    September 27, 2011

    Ah, it’s always refreshing to get a spoiled 14 year old on the threads.

  38. #38 Neil Craiog
    September 27, 2011

    As normal the ecofascists are wholly incapable of rational discusiion and resort to ad homs and lies.

    If anybody doubts that the entire ecofascist movement is incapable of honesty they will expect to see a single solitary member of that group coming on here to dispute with the liars. Experience shows that does not happen.

  39. #39 Wow
    September 27, 2011

    Whiner, are you talking about “Lib Tard” in post 36?

    Or are you posting about your own post in 38, which would be rather Zen of you.

  40. #40 Al Douche
    September 27, 2011

    Does douche contain carbon?

    Does douche boy contain consume or emit carbon?

  41. #41 jim sternhell
    September 27, 2011

    Looks like some people are being pedantic about their definitions of “food.” CO2 gets incorporated into plants, via photosynthesis in to the carbon frameworks of which they are comprised. Obviously, other “nutrition” is required (from the soil) to make the more complex structures, but CO2 is an integral part of their food chain. Below about 150ppm of CO2 , plant growth stalls.At higher levels of CO2, many plant species produce significantly higher biomass. A reference here for those who wish to investigate further- go to CO2science type in “transpiration” and you will find some studies that will shed light on the situation. While on the subject of reference web sites, a really good link filled site is climatedebatedaily.com . Be warned though, it will take you hours if not days to navigate through all the links.Plants also use oxygen to metabolize the carbohydrates they produce, but because they produce more than they burn, they are nett emitters of oxygen.
    An old lawyer trick- if you have no evidence-attack the messenger. This seems to be a frequent tactic used by the “warmists”- just call sceptics “deniers” “flat earthers” or other names.
    Comment 13 has trouble understanding the relevance of holes being poked in theories. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to dismiss some of the data because it does not fit in with the model. The (now debunked but still trotted out by alarmists) hockey stick model had conveniently severely downplayed the medieval warming period. This mob had FRAUDULENTLY manipulated the data to fit in with the modelling of their pet theory. Currently, we are seeing attempts to suppress the release of emails from Mann. Does he have something to hide? Science is about openness.
    “The science is settled” comes up frequently. I do not have a specific reference at this stage. I do know that here in Australia, politicians on the “warmist” side refuse to debate the science, claiming it is settled. At a recent “carbon tax forum” I attended a couple of months ago, the Climate Change Minister himself was the key speaker. He said at the start that there will be no discussion on the “science”, saying it was settled. All rather fishy when the whole justification for proposed carbon taxes is based on “the science.” Tell me, do you believe everything politicians tell you?

  42. #42 Wow
    September 28, 2011

    O2 gets incorporated into animals, via respiration in to the sugars of which the cell food is comprised.

    But we don’t call O2 animal food.

    “At a recent “carbon tax forum” I attended a couple of months ago, the Climate Change Minister himself was the key speaker. He said at the start that there will be no discussion on the “science”, saying it was settled.”

    The science of ballistic trajectories is settled.

    I don’t hear you complain about that.

    PS Monckton has also said the science is settled, and said it first:

    And I’m going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.

    — Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation

  43. #43 Wow
    September 28, 2011

    So, Jim, is “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” settled or not? Is “Thermodynamics” settled or not?

  44. #44 Neil Craig
    September 28, 2011

    Oh well if a government minister says it is settled that settles it. None of this proof through scientific experiment.

    Of course since a government chief minister, Mr A Hitler, is on record as saying the science ofJewish inferiority is settled Wow and all the rest of the eco-Nazis, if they in any way whatsoever mean what they say, accept that is “settled” too.

    Once again I ask if there is a single member of the warming alarmist/ecofascist movement who possesses the smallest degree of integrity or human decency. So far the resounding answer is that not a single one of them does.

  45. #45 Wow
    September 28, 2011

    You know, when you get evidence and proof through scientific experiment, then you’re allowed to say “the science is settled” on the matter of the proven science.

    Of course, your mad toff Monckton always calls other nazis, even Jews! So I guess that your statements are wrong because you have to fall back on ad hom and namecalling.

  46. #46 Seymour Douchefish
    September 28, 2011

    How many red herrings does it take to feed a climate gullible?

    One red herring and a bottle of douche to wash it down.

  47. #47 Wow
    September 29, 2011

    Whatever you like to do when your hand’s on your weiner, pal.

  48. #48 Neil Craig
    September 29, 2011

    And that is as close to intelligent discussion as anybody in the eco-Nazi movemnt aspires to.

  49. #49 Wow
    September 29, 2011

    Ah, lovely whine there, whiner.

    Tell me, are sour grapes all that scotland has given you?

  50. #50 Enema boy
    September 29, 2011

    What if we invested in green douching technology. Say to the tune of a six trillion dollar giant mega international douche nozzle?? It might counter the horsesqueeze ‘positive feedback’ bullcrap. You know that douche is a good counter to the crap.

    Oh wait. I meant a giant Enema machine. Damn!! I have to start my douche enema carbon research all over again. Gonna needs me some more research douche dollars. Ten years til retirement and all that crap. Oh!!! Crap! Need an enema to treat that carbon back there!!!

    Dumb masses.

  51. #51 Wow
    September 30, 2011

    Well, you don’t need an enema, since you’re pulling all sorts of crap out of your mouth.

    It’s so sad when the pre-teen boys get their jollies talking crap on the internet.

  52. #52 Wow
    September 30, 2011

    James, just wondering.

    Did you refuse the advances of some squeaky-voiced-teen and so now he keeps posting on here about water being pushed up his arse to clean it out?

  53. #53 John
    September 30, 2011

    Wow, that’s crazy! We should cut down our emissions in every way we can. Carpools are a great way to help out our environment.

  54. #54 GregH
    September 30, 2011

    Jim Sternhell: At higher levels of CO2, many plant species produce significantly higher biomass.

    And many don’t. Many show a slight increase, followed by a decline as [CO2] increases further. Trying to generalize increasing [CO2] = increased biomass as a solution to atmospheric CO2 emissions isn’t going to work.

    Besides, I thought you guys didn’t believe CO2 was the problem? In fact, didn’t someone say, “Water vapour is responsible for 90% of the apparent greenhouse effect. CO2 is a minor player.” That was apparently you. Problem solved!

    Check this out, if you’re interested in learning more (you need to read the whole thing, because I cherry-picked this quote):

    “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations” Science 30 June 2006

    “In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ∼50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.”

  55. #55 jim sternhell
    October 1, 2011

    CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It is said to have its effect by slowing down the re-radiation of certain wavelengths of infra red back in to space. The effect is self-limiting. It can only trap 100% of these wavelengths. A recent probe found more infra red radiation being emitted in to space than was previously thought, so the doom and gloom believers can rest easy and go back to buying waterfront property at inflated prices.
    The term “eco-nazi” is truer than you might think. The tactics that are being used by the left at the moment and in particular, the Green movement are straight out of the Nazi handbook. Go to your quotes attributed to Nazis and you will find the tactics are in keeping with their’s. Here in Australia, the Green movement is openly anti Israel. They have even taken to picketing businesses with supposed Israeli links. I for one now actively seek out these businesses and supply them with my patronage.
    After WW 2, many Nazis and Communists joined the Green movement. Mind you, these 2 seemingly opposite political systems are in fact very similar, so it is no surprise that they would join forces.
    Using the term “the science is settled” was used by Hitler and is now being used by those responsible for the AGW fraud as a way to quell debate(because they know they cannot win a full argument.)
    The planet has had higher CO2 levels in the past and did not suffer from a runaway greenhouse inferno, so concerns over higher CO2 levels both human and natural are unfounded. Taxing the life out of us to reduce CO2 levels in the vain hope that it can influence the climate is totally insane unless it satisfies a hidden agenda. Hint- investigate UN agenda 21 and Fabian Socialism to find that hidden agenda. Be warned, your blood may curdle.

  56. #56 Lesley
    October 3, 2011

    Thanks for the great post hope to read more.

  57. #57 Wow
    October 3, 2011

    “CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas”

    It’s #2 in effect.

    And, unlike the #1 placement, it doesn’t fall out of the sky readily within a couple of weeks.

    “It is said to have its effect by slowing down the re-radiation of certain wavelengths of infra red back in to space”

    All greenhouse gasses do that. Even “a major greenhouse gas”.

    “The effect is self-limiting.”

    Nope. You see, two things are wrong:

    1) wearing a thick coat on top of a thick jumper still keeps you warmer than either one alone

    2) We have an atmosphere that gets cooler as you rise.

    “The term “eco-nazi” is truer than you might think.”

    Yes, though it applies to the likes of you, who INSIST on telling everyone what to do.

    “The planet has had higher CO2 levels in the past and did not suffer from a runaway greenhouse inferno”

    It did have no ice caps, the loss of which means a 70m higher sea level.

    Gonna grow gills?

    “After WW 2, many Nazis and Communists joined the Green movement.”

    Ah, excellent. Well this proves your insanity.

    “Taxing the life out of us to reduce CO2 levels”

    Fears about taxing the life out of people are unfounded.

  58. #58 Jim Sternhell
    October 4, 2011

    Some scientists doubt the greenhouse effect of heat trapping and being retained is valid. I have heard a theory that it is the weight and pressure of the atmosphere that creates the extra 33 degrees of heat at the surface due to the Boltzman equation PV=nRt . High school science. This would explain the effect of temperatures becoming fairly predictably cooler as one goes up a mountain.
    CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for roughly 3 1/2 years. The point of water being precipitated out does not tell us how long the water vapour hangs around for.

    Your extra jumper analogy is TOTALLY wrong- a jumper works by trapping the air warmed by the wearer and slowing down the heat exchange process by hindering convection currents. Apart from a bit of vulcanism, the earth does not produce much heat of its own to be trapped by the greenhouse blanket-the heat trapped is almost entirely that which had been radiated from the sun to be re-radiated at night. Most of the heat re-radiation happens after a few hours at night, while the body is constantly radiating heat. CO2 in the atmosphere will have almost no effect on convection currents being hindered.A recent probe found heat radiated at night to be higher than expected ie less heat being retained.
    The climate sceptics are not the eco-nazis. We are not trying to say what others should do(rather ,what actions do NOT need to be made.) The warmists are the ones trying to tell the rest what to do(going back to the stone age.)So go back to your eco-Nazi cave.
    You obviously have not seen our Green politicians here in Australia- if you look at their manifesto on the net, some of the stuff sounds quite good(common sense stuff) but some of the stuff is totally looney high socialist crap that has nothing to do with the environment.
    Highly unlikely that both Northern and Southern hemisphere’s ice caps will fully melt at the same time. The 70 metres figure is the same as I calculated once for fun when I used to believe the warmist crap(ah yes, we are all young and foolish at some stage.) Humans have upped stumps and moved before, usually at short notice. Melting ice caps(if they are actually receding) will take a long time to inundate coastal regions. Kind of strange that some of the biggest “warmers” out there live on the waterfront.One recent scare recently claimed that sea levels would rise 90 metres in the next 90 years.The government did not label this for what it is (total crap.)If this crap were true, Australia’s chief science spokesperson (a biologist and anthropologist) who has a waterside property just 1 metre above sea level will find himself flooded out very soon. Al Gore has recently bought waterside property, as have other senior political figures in Australia. Either they are hypocrites, fools , insanely optimistic that humans can have any effect on climate or they know it is a big fraud.
    The carbon tax proposed in Australia will be yet another cost impost that will make us even less competitive than we already are. Once it reverts in to an ETS (which is far more costly than that in Europe) it will such suck us dry with payments to foreign entities.Do note, there is no economic benefit from these taxes- only making traders, scammers and the UN rich.By 2050, Australia will be forking out 57 BILLION dollars per year for permits(hey, there are only 22 1/2 million of us here). That money would go a long way toward upping stumps and moving inland IF water levels actually rise. Do note, the level of sea level rise has been slowing of late- so much for Mann’s “hockey stick” rubbish. I for one am really looking forward to the release of Mann’s emails. I reckon he is going to be a one man “climategate” on steroids. The way he is trying to avoid the release shows he has something to hide.

  59. #59 Wow
    October 4, 2011

    “Some scientists doubt the greenhouse effect of heat trapping and being retained is valid.”

    Some scientists believe that Adam and Eve really existed and that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was vegetarian in the Garden of Eden.

    > a theory that it is the weight and pressure of the atmosphere that creates the extra 33 degrees of heat at the surface due to the Boltzman equation PV=nRt

    Such a theory would be unable to explain the temperature of Venus where the temperature would have to be 90x the earth’s 300K, taking the temperature that this “theory” would proscribe for Venus a surface temperature 21,000K hotter than the surface of the sun.

    A theory, moreover, that would have the earth with no atmosphere since that extra 33K would be radiated away to space, the atmosphere collapsing and the equation being kept correct by not the increase of temperature, but the reduction of the volume of the atmosphere.

    Or, in other words, a vegetarian Tyrannosaur theory.

    “Your extra jumper analogy is TOTALLY wrong- a jumper works by trapping the air warmed by the wearer”

    Which is 100% stopped by wearing a thin shirt over your body.

    So why is your body warmer with a thick jumper on than with a thin shirt?

    Because your “theory” is complete bunkum.

    “The climate sceptics are not the eco-nazis.”

    Indeed, the IPCC are climate skeptics and are not the eco nazis.

    You, however, are not a climate skeptic and are an eco nazi.

    “Highly unlikely that both Northern and Southern hemisphere’s ice caps will fully melt at the same time”

    The southern hemisphere had only a light sprinking of snow in its winter months, not a pack miles thick.

    “Humans have upped stumps and moved before, usually at short notice.”

    Ask New Orleans how well that goes. Now ask New York to move at short notice.

    And remind me, wasn’t that minor limited flooding called a “catastrophe”? Wasn’t there a big push for disaster recovery from it?

    Were they alarmists, then?

    “One recent scare recently claimed that sea levels would rise 90 metres in the next 90 years.”

    That would be the scare you just wrote, yes? Or is it a repeat from another denialist in a long train of chinese whispers?

    “The way he is trying to avoid the release shows he has something to hide.”

    GWPF are hiding stuff. As are Heartland Institute. Pat Michaels even LIED (not just *hid*) the fact that most of his money came from fossil fuel sources.

    As to it being a “climategate on steroids”, since the last “climategate” showed no malfeasance, you’re going to get more “no malfeasance”. All that will be on steroids is the continued screaming of vicimised denialists INSISTING that there’s a big conspiracy.

  60. #60 NJ
    October 4, 2011

    JS@58:

    Some scientists doubt the greenhouse effect of heat trapping and being retained is valid.

    In contrast to those who can actually read a graph

  61. #61 Richard Simons
    October 4, 2011

    Jim Sternhell @41

    CO2 gets incorporated into plants, via photosynthesis in to the carbon frameworks of which they are comprised. Obviously, other “nutrition” is required (from the soil) to make the more complex structures, but CO2 is an integral part of their food chain. Below about 150ppm of CO2 , plant growth stalls.At higher levels of CO2, many plant species produce significantly higher biomass.

    Anyone who then assumes that this will result in higher in situ biomass, and especially crop yields, is ill-informed. Plants may (and many do not) grow faster, but they also die more rapidly. There will also be changes in the numbers of pest organisms, the incidence and severity of diseases, the chemical composition of the plants and the allocation of resources in the plant amongst foliage, stems, roots, flowers and seeds. The net result is very difficult to predict with our present knowledge.

    The agrument has been made that higher CO2 will result in the need for fewer stomata, thus reducing transpiration and saving water. However, this neglects the important cooling effect of water evaporation and heat stress is likely to become more important, especially in a warmer world.

    Your comments casting doubt on the persistence and the warming effects of CO2 are, of course, nonsense.

Current ye@r *