OH good, we are now in the phase where SR starts to try (usually rather ineptly) to muddy the water having realised he utterly screwed up.

eg..

He writes.."No mate, you first introduced the date. i clearly said over the last century not since 1850."

Well SR, in your post of 13 September 2019 1:17:49 PM, you wrote of a 2c temperature rise based on a graph from a site you introduced. That 2c rise and the graph it came from was for the period 1850- present. I responded to that claim.

Now, if you can find a post from me in this thread before that date/time, that mentioned or relied on anything to do with 1850, then I'll withdraw. Knowing that you can't, I'll accept your apology.

"But hey, let's play it your way.

Here is the Berkeley raw land data."

Its not my way, its your claim. I was refuting it. I did such a good job that you're now mocking your previous views.

I really wish I could work out if he's an utter clown or is just happy to beclown himself rather than admit an error.

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, is it possible to allocate responsibility for world temperature rise of two degrees over the past 170 years, very roughly, as follows:

* . one half of a degree rise contributed by the production of heat in manufacturing;

* . one half of a degree to the origination and expanded use of air-conditioning;

* . one half of a degree to emissions of CO, water vapor and other gases;

* . one half of a degree due to natural and all other causes.

Plus a tiny amount due to inaccuracies in measuring, etc.

Presumably there has been a great deal of research carried out to isolate the contributions of each factor (and those of many more factors). Obviously too, these different causal allocations surely must vary from the above ?

Or are these just more silly questions ?

Joe

" is it possible to allocate responsibility for world temperature rise of two degrees over the past 170 years"

Well, with the caveat that SR's 2c figure was not really correct, no, its not possible. If it were then the science would indeed be settled.

In some ways its fair to say that the entire issue is an argument over exactly how to allocate responsibility for the temperature rise.

But think about this...very nearly half of that 2c rise occurred before 1940. But up to 1940, man's emissions (manufacturing, AC etc) as measured by atmospheric CO2 levels were insufficient to be used as a reason for that rise.

Therefore, using these criteria, almost half (and probably a lot more) of the rise since 1850 must have been due to natural causes.

Dear mhaze,

You obfuscate with;

“Well SR, in your post of 13 September 2019 1:17:49 PM, you wrote of a 2c temperature rise based on a graph from a site you introduced. That 2c rise and the graph it came from was for the period 1850- present. I responded to that claim.”

Wow! That was pretty tortuous.

Lol.

This is what you had said "So a rise of two degrees Celsius in the last century" is actually about 0.7c per century using 1850 as the start date.”

Which then got further twisted into; “Because YOU used 1850 as YOUR starting point for the 2c figure.”

I have shown that not to be true, and that using Berkeley's raw data which informed the graph there was indeed a demonstrable 2C rise in the last century.

Once again old boy you are left standing with proverbial egg on your face. Time to give it away.

Hi SR,

So is it possible to differentiate the multiple causes of temperature rise since, say, the Second World War - CO2 etc. emissions, heat from increased manufacturing (it's got to go somewhere, so why not the atmosphere ?), transport, air-conditioning, volcanic eruptions, etc. ?

And of course, to take into account any natural factors which actually reduce temperature ?

Another dopey question: how much CO2 etc. emissions can be handled by the atmosphere and the environment 'naturally' ? i.e. how much above and beyond that has to be dealt with by changes in technology, renewables, etc. ? Say, by massive reforestation projects ?

A fool can ask questions that may take a genius to answer :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I highly suspect you are doing your normal passive/aggressive non-genuine posturing again which has become quite tedious but I'm a sucker so here goes.

You asked;

“So is it possible to differentiate the multiple causes of temperature rise since, say, the Second World War - CO2 etc. emissions, heat from increased manufacturing (it's got to go somewhere, so why not the atmosphere ?), transport, air-conditioning, volcanic eruptions, etc. ?”

Heat dissipates from the atmosphere pretty quickly. If the sun were to stop shining tomorrow the earth would be at 0C within a week, about 40 below within a year and then march relatively quickly down to normal space temperature.

So heat generated by human sources is only a very small fraction compared to that produced by sunlight hitting the earth's surface. The principal cause of the greenhouse effect is the trapping of infrared radiation produced by that sunlight. The reason for the increasing global temperature is the molecules which make up our greenhouse gases are increasing in proportion to other gases in our atmosphere.

The earth achieved a certain relative temperature balance at a certain concentration of these gases. By artificially tipping more gases like CO2 into the atmosphere we are altering that balance. My understanding is about 57% of the extra CO2 that enters the atmosphere each year is retained after that year. The balance is churned through the natural system'. So the system has not been keeping up. This is what is needed to be dealt with.

Reforestation of course helps as can be seen by the fluctuating CO2 levels resulting from seasonal growth mainly driven be the northern hemisphere. Just how much is the question. The growth in renewable is far from keeping up with the rise in GH gases in the atmosphere. They are at the moment just postponing the inevitable.