I'm entirely open to good news. In fact, I collect it on my blog. But it has to come from peer-reviewed sources, as in *real* science. I'm all for trialling geo-engineering schemes that might cool the planet and de-acidify the oceans.Then let the climate and nature experts inspect the results. But that's the thing isn't it?

I respect the peer-review processs: you obviously don't. Give the Snyder paper time in the peer-review circuit and see how the science bounces back. The peer-review process is quite rigorous enough to attack itself. This Snyder paper may not survive that process, and I'll be glad if it doesn't! The *regular* climate news is bad enough.

Whatever survives peer review is the best guess the human race has as to what is going on. We should listen to it!

Now, where I see genuine debate is what to DO about all this! I'm with James Hansen. I'm not convinced we can move to a power source that is mostly *OFF*. Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the problem of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*.
He says:
1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
(*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste).

Bob

I believe this reference puts into perspective the research just published. New research is closely scrutinised when published, it is the usual process.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/global-warming-study-13-degrees-is-wrong-climate-change/#sthash.5nIshEys.dpuf

Quote:

“But the conclusions the study’s author drew from that research—that even preventing any further increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could still leave the Earth doomed to a catastrophic temperature rise of up to 7 degrees Celsius (about 13 degrees Fahrenheit)—isn’t supported by the data, several top scientists said.

“This is simply wrong,” said Gavin Schmidt, chief of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

Just to emphasize, the issue was about if emissions were to stop now; the author of the new study had suggested temperature could still go up to 7C; whereas, generally 2C is the accepted increase in temperature.

Science equals: question, then literature research, then hypothesis, then collection of data ,then hypothesis might be discarded or modified, more data collected or paper written, peer reviewed before publishing, once published may be critiqued by scientists reading published paper, the paper may then be modified post publication.

Last comment in relation to this OLO article.

The OLO article is about Roberts's maiden speech where he spoke about climate change.

He was criticised by a scientist for not understanding the laws of thermodynamics

The upper atmosphere of our planet can reduce impact of meteors and reduce solar heat, so why would increase in CO2 not reduce even a fraction of solar heat?

"so why would increase in CO2 not reduce even a fraction of solar heat?"

It's called physics.

Shortwave length energy (light) pierces easily through CO2.

Longwave length energy (heat) cannot as easily pierce through CO2.

Fourier discovered this in the 1820's. Basically, modern devices shine various spectra of energy through gases and see what 'shadow' they leave behind. It's like finger-puppet shadows, but instead of guessing the name of the animal, you're learning about what energy bandwidth has been trapped by the gas.

I've just typed all that for you JF Aus.

Do you have the integrity to watch this demonstration of CO2, verifiable by any decent physicist on the planet?

60 seconds only!

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute.
(The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

You're welcome.

Craig Minns,

f.y.i
http://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1/

@ Max Green, Thursday, 29 September 2016 8:05:55 PM

Max,

You say, "Longwave length energy (heat) cannot as easily pierce through CO2".

I think that if heat cannot as easily penetrate through CO2 then Malcolm Roberts has a point in indicating that increase in CO2 in upper atmosphere helps reduce solar radiation and heating of our planet.