BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 19:08 GMT 20:08 UK

'"The sun is causing climate change, not CO2.

sceptic"

You keep refusing to explain then why basic physics is wrong.'
James T Kirk

There is no proof of MMCC in physics, basic or otherwise. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its impact on our climate has been exaggerated.

sceptic

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 19:07 GMT 20:07 UK

Howard: For the sake of undoubtedly generating yet more drown-out posts from the cast of CBS's Big Bang Theory sitcom:

If we increase CO2 by 30% above pre-industrial values we have a rough idea of the effect?

In terms of actual global temperature rise & whether that is benign or catastrophic, no. IMHO too many unknowns & anomalies remain.

Now, you may have funding to sit all day planting mock posts you can self-challenge to advance your agenda, some of us have work to do. Bye!

Mork, Uttoxeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:46 GMT 19:46 UK

"Please produce here with units the net GHG effect of adding 1 molecule of CO2 to 500,000 molecules of real atmosphere
Mork"

since 499,900 molecules are invisible and do not react to IR, you only have 100 molecules to compare against.

And the 1 molecule there goes up and doesn't go down.

If your tap is left on as a drip, the plug in, does the bath not fill up just because it's only 0.1g of water each second going in?

Mark, Exeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:44 GMT 19:44 UK

"If you enter 'climate change' on the web you will be able to find all the non-warmist scientists who disagree with you. You may now study their papers at your leisure.

harry portsmouth "

However, if you find errors in them you will be ignored as their papers that "prove" AGW doesn't exist are 2100% accurate and beyond reproach. If you see any errors, then you must be in the pay of the eco-facists.

PS there aren't very many of them either...

Mark, Exeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:43 GMT 19:43 UK

"Funny how when those same models are applied retrospectively the results bear no relationship to what was actively observed isn't it? And very telling that this is either ignored or denied by the proponents of MMGW.

Steve Butler, Basingstoke, United Kingdom"

In what way? The combination of observations and models is a major tool used by scientists in understanding the climate system. It's called 're-analysis'. Look it up.

[aberrant_apostrophe], Reading, United Kingdom

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:42 GMT 19:42 UK

Howard:
The rise can be estimated within a broad range by means of a climate model only if correctly calibrated and all the real world parameters are known fairly precisely. Attempting to derive the contribution made by one when that is not the case gives useful insight into the interaction of known mechanisms but not an estimate free of cumulative error or an acceptable indication of real world outcome. IMHO that is in essence the difference between real science and modelling.

Mork, Uttoxeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:42 GMT 19:42 UK

"Sorry Les - the point is that we know that according to the statistics, adding CO2 to the system, in say world wars or European industrial revolutions did not affect climate.

harry bristol"

It DOD have an effect, else the suphur output of the WW2 and industrial revolution would have created a new little ice age.

That we didn't experience one (the thames didn't freeze, did it?) is because of the GG of CO2.

Mark, Exeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:38 GMT 19:38 UK

"Most argue that the amounts of man made CO2 in the atmosphere are so tiny they can have no effect on climate when compared to natural variations.

harry reigate"

Yet when it comes to working out whether it is tiny, they compare the extra human output against the total available CO2, whether it is available to the atmosphere (as opposed to locked up where it won't be exhausted to the air).

We've added 40% to the total CO2 in the air.

Is this a tiny amount to you?

Mark, Exeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:36 GMT 19:36 UK

"Warmists do not even bother to look the theories that run contrary to their own

Karl Popper "

Ironic that a denialist would say that since they INSIST that AGW is wrong and deny any evidence that shows it has validity.

Yet when it comes to any number that could say it isn't happening, these "skeptics" are curiously credulous...

Mark, Exeter

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:26 GMT 19:26 UK

All you deniers on here are totally missing the point of the argument: it's not me or the many on here who accept the MMCC arguments you have to convince. It's the scientific community and you can only do that using the scientific method and with evidence, using the tried and tested ways of seeking scientific "truth" which isn't going to change simply because you don't like, understand or accept the results it has come up with. Posting "soundbite", cherry picked science on here is quite futile.

Seventy's Student

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:21 GMT 19:21 UK

Howard Wolowitz, The ten warmest years on record have all been since 1997

Its this kind of emotive claptrap statement that misinforms people. Its like saying half the coins in my pocket are pennies so there must be a 50% global increase in pennies on Pluto.

The earths atmosphere is 4,500,000,000 years old approximately. The reliable climate record we have is only 200,000 years approximately but gets increasingly unreliable past as little as 100 years. That means we simply don't know.

[Angryofgaia]

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:19 GMT 19:19 UK

Why do you think Sheldon Cooper that I don't know or understand what others have proposed..Well here's news for you. Detailed understandingof the scientific minutiae is not needed to make an informed decision
We all make make decisions on the information we trust as presumably you have taken data that you trust to come to your opinion. Do you believe the politicos who'll make the key long term decisions on our behalf understand the science. Believe that & the naivety rests not with me

[lorderkules], Leeds

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:12 GMT 19:12 UK

What, even more cows producing methane?

Cut human population growth.... its the only way.

Sandy Middlemas, London

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:11 GMT 19:11 UK

I read recently that cow pats are responsible for 10% of global warming due to the gases rising. Suggest Real Science study on whether the crapola injected into cattle & genetically modified foodstuffs has anything to do with it.

G8 Leaders pledged $20bn (£12bn) to boost food supplies to the hungry.
The investment, which is $5bn more > expected will fund a three-year initiative to help develop agriculture.

So which is it? Surely the 2 conflict. Food delivered or agro systems set up.

Diana Atkin, Canada

Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 18:06 GMT 19:06 UK

Sceptic"

Oh dear. Yet more lies and misinformation. Would this be same solar irradiance which is caused by sunspots and should only result in at most 0.5 degrees of variation.

Likely to be ignored, Birmingham

Magic sunspots. k. Possibly an oblique and progressive orbit as ONE variable whose miriad sub functions can't be predicted? "lies and misinformation". We should be so lucky! Temperature stability in chaos should be unexpected to the point of miraculous if man had never arrived.

Chigliak, USA