Climate-Gate. Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton – Part 2 of 5
August 4th, 2010 | Author: nyt
An hour with Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher and a critic of global warming theories.
global warming blog
global warmingawareness
August 4th, 2010 | Author: nyt
goggle eyed fuckwit
its so good to see that the news companies of Canada are so open on this debate. In British news programmes, we have journalists chosen on the grounds of their leftist global warmingist views presenting these programmes who don’t give geniuses like lord Monckton space to breathe
It’s totally amazing that people still believe the global warming nonsense.
After Toto pulled away the curtain even the scarecrow didn’t say,
“Hey, where’s the wizard?…the Wizard is still real and you better beieve it. I have scientific proof from the horse of a diffrent colour and 2400 flying monkeys!”
It’s totally amazing that people still believe the gloabl warming nonsense.
After Toto pulled away the curtain even the scarecrow didn’t say,
“Hey, where’s the wizard?…the Wizard is still real and you better beieve it. I have scientific proof from the horse of a diffrent colour and 2400 flying monkeys!”
Well, that’s one way of saying it. Maybe I would have chosen a different phrasing, but you are absolutely right.
There are many things that “control” climate, CO2 is one of them. For a longer, and better, explanation please watch this video
watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
If you still have questions after that, please watch the whole playlist it’s part of.
For a small illustration on how CO2 can have a big impact on warming the earth even though it is a very small percent of the atmosphere, please watch
watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
Yes, I understand – there are many complexities. But the basic premise of AGW is that a small (0.03%) percentage of atmospheric CO2 now controls the climate, whereas much greater concentrations in the past did not do so. Why is this?
In other words, warmer surface temperature in our oceans will have an impact on the atmospheric temperature close to Earths surface (GMT).
For more information about oceans role in climate, please read:
w w w. oco. noaa. gov/ index. jsp?show_page =page_roc. jsp&nav=universal
@jonohx: Sorry for my late response
For your calculations to be correct we would need an extremely high heat transfer from the surface to the bottom of the oceans. That is not the case in reality since warm surface water (warmer than +4 deg C) has a lower density than the cold water at the bottom. If the surface water gets warmer, it will lose more density and consequently stay at the surface, and the large ocean currents are just too slow to transfer enough heat to the bottom of the oceans.
Moncktons not a scientist,monckton is a right winged catholic conservative wanker thats what this is all about with monckton,its about the right an what are the stuckup catholic conservatives they are right winged fuckwits who dont want to lose control.
Yes, we had that figure before – but what effect does it have on GMT?
10m deep, say 1m square = 1 x 10e7 g water. You need 4.2J to heat 1g water by 1 degree C. 1.6w heats 1g in 2.6 secs. Reservoir will need 2.6 x 10e7 seconds = 300days – but with heat losses could be several times longer. Ocean area = 3.6×10e14m2. Vol = 1.26×10e24g. Time to heat 1 degree C = 0.9 x 10e10 seconds = 317 years (without losses).
The actual heating effect from the increase of CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm that we have seen is aproximately what you said earlier, 1.6 W/m2.
See my earlier comments for what 1.6 W/m2 actually means, how a 10m deep water reservoir can increase 1 degC in temp in less than a year.
@jonohx
For more info on what we know about climate change please watch
watch?v=w9SGw75pVas
and please don’t hesitate to check out the references listed in the info for this vid. Just click “more info”.
No – I agree with you. So what is the actual heating effect in the climate of 380ppm CO2 vs. 280ppm?
“O2 and O3 have a small absorbtion band in the IR spectrum and quite a large one in the far infrared.”
If you by “far infrared” mean at waveleangths around 0.2-0.3 micrometer, that is ultraviolet not infrared. t is not even close to wavelengths radiating from Earth.
The logarithmic effect you are talking about does exist, but I believe you have misunderstod it slightly. It is true that the forcing effect (per ppm) is lower as the percentage increases. An increase from 380 ppm to 480 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will not have as high impact on the climate as the increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm has.
It is just that this contradicts what you said before. A small amount of CO2 (only 380 ppm) in the atmosphere does have a large impact.
You should again check your numbers. CH4 (methane) has a warming potential of 25 times greater than (the same amount of) CO2 over a 100 year peiod, or 72 times greater than CO2 over a 20 year period. The difference between long and short periods is due to that CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere.
The concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is however much lower than CO2, so the total impact is lower. CH4 has a current concentration of 1.7 ppm which is a 150% increase from a pre-industrial level.
O3 (ozone) has a small absorption band in the IR spectrum, yes. That is why it is the 4′th largest contributor to the greenhouse effect. O2 and N2 does not, at least not in any significant amount.
Besides, the amounts of N2 and O2 in the atmosphere has not changed during the past centuries. CO2, CH4, N2O, O3 and CFCs has changed, and all indications say it is due to human impact. Water vapour in the atmosphere has also increased due to warmer oceans, a so called “positive feedback”.
@Saindenz
You can listen to the scientists who monitor satelite data yourself,
ht tp: // climate. nasa. gov/
Then tell me if that is what Monckton is saying.
If you go in to Wikipedia, you can at least find references to where the information comes from, which I’ve never heard from Monckton. If the sorce of that information is reliable and the info on Wikipedia is the same as in the reference, then I do believe the info on Wikipedia.
@beeveemee
So the fact that Monckton listens to scientists who monitor satellite data plus the scientist who provides ice core carbon dioxide history data makes him less of a reliable source than Wikipedia… is why?
@beeveemee
The IPCC has recently said that the business as usual 5.8C was over estimated by a factor of 7. It should have been 0.8C. Implementing all of Copenhagen would save only 0.2C – hardly possible to measure, so what’s the point of it.
@beeveemee – you say N and O2 ‘do not absorb IR’. In fact O2 and O3 have a small absorbtion band in the IR spectrum and quite a large one in the far infrared. Methane and CHCs are thousands of times more effective than CO2, and the % of water vapour is much higher than the 0.03% CO2. Not only is the CO2 % subject to balance by sequestration, its forcing effect is logarithic and reduces as % goes up. It is fairly obvious that CO2 cannot control climate.
watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag
@jonohx
One good example of how this IR absorption can be found here:
/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Radiation from the sun (mostly UV and visible) goes through the atmosphere with very little absorption. That radiation heats the earth. The warm earth radiates outwards with a longer wavelength (infrared), which cools the earth. But, since there are greenhouse gases, some of the IR radiation is absorbed again and the earth does not cool down as much as it should have without the greenhouse gases.