I think it is a question of scale. There are many studies which show that even extensive use of renewables can't replace any more than a fraction of our energy needs (cos the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine etc.)

That in turn means that renewables can't displace any more than a fraction of our CO2 emissions. The More research is published, the more it looks as if Gandalf is probably right.

That said, I think we have larger and more immediate problems than CO2 such as food and water. Those however are a topic for elsewhere.

You have to admit though that we are only here able to discuss these topics is because of the harnessing of *energy*, otherwise we'd be communicating via smoke signals in our parasite, sick, very low life span misery raddled world.

Of course we are heading back to another ice age just at look at the geological and ice core temperature reconstruction makes that evidently clear, unless you worship in the church of wicked human caused global warming.

Tell you what though: if co2 takes the edge of falling temperatures then all that use of fossil fuels not only gave us humans the exalted place we find ourselves today, it also protects us-for a while- from a cooling planet. how neat is that. A sort of have your cake and heat it.

Fantastic

Perspective dear boy, perspective
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An overview to get things into perspective

You have to admit though that we are only here able to discuss these topics is because of the harnessing of *energy*, otherwise we'd be communicating via smoke signals in our parasite, sick, very low life span misery raddled world.

Of course we are heading back to another ice age just at look at the geological and ice core temperature reconstruction makes that evidently clear, unless you worship in the church of wicked human caused global warming.

Tell you what though: if co2 takes the edge of falling temperatures then all that use of fossil fuels not only gave us humans the exalted place we find ourselves today, it also protects us-for a while- from a cooling planet. how neat is that. A sort of have your cake and heat it.

Fantastic

Perspective dear boy, perspective
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An overview to get things into perspective

Perspective? Your post is entirely lacking in perspective.

You might as well say that someone lost in the desert who drinks his last bottle of water has in fact made his rucksack lighter and therefore it's just good news.

Which part of finite don't you get?

Which part of 'highest CO2 levels for 600,000 years' don't you get?

The fig leaf which is your assertion that we are avoiding or delaying the next ice age is just that, I'm afraid.

You have to admit though that we are only here able to discuss these topics is because of the harnessing of *energy*, otherwise we'd be communicating via smoke signals in our parasite, sick, very low life span misery raddled world.

Of course we are heading back to another ice age just at look at the geological and ice core temperature reconstruction makes that evidently clear, unless you worship in the church of wicked human caused global warming.

Tell you what though: if co2 takes the edge of falling temperatures then all that use of fossil fuels not only gave us humans the exalted place we find ourselves today, it also protects us-for a while- from a cooling planet. how neat is that. A sort of have your cake and heat it.

Fantastic

Perspective dear boy, perspective
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An overview to get things into perspective

Perspective? Your post is entirely lacking in perspective.

You might as well say that someone lost in the desert who drinks his last bottle of water has in fact made his rucksack lighter and therefore it's just good news.

Which part of finite don't you get?

Which part of 'highest CO2 levels for 600,000 years' don't you get?

The fig leaf which is your assertion that we are avoiding or delaying the next ice age is just that, I'm afraid.

Yes, but, look, it's ALL good news. It's simply not possible for there to be bad news about CO2 because then you're a scaremonger and scaremongers are bad, leftie, greenie type. Indeed, it's not possible there can be facts about CO2 and climate which might be bad news...

No, everything to do with anthro CO2 is good news. Learn that and you'll be just fine

That's the saddest most whingey, Rant I've heard in a long time. Dev.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

That's the saddest most whingey, Rant I've heard in a long time. Dev.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

Why would that be AIMSIR?

It seemed to me to be a perfectly pitched piece of irony.

I find it intriguing that you felt it appropriate to comment on Dev's post whilst ignoring completely the extraordinary post by Lawrence that led to my riposte and Dev's post?  Perhaps you would care to enlighten us....

That's the saddest most whingey, Rant I've heard in a long time. Dev.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

Why would that be AIMSIR?

It seemed to me to be a perfectly pitched piece of irony.

I find it intriguing that you felt it appropriate to comment on Dev's post whilst ignoring completely the extraordinary post by Lawrence that led to my riposte and Dev's post?  Perhaps you would care to enlighten us....

 

As regards your 600,000 year high on co2 post, so was yours.

Happy now?.

OK.Lawrence's post was lousy too.So was mine.

As regards your 600,000 year high on co2 post, so was yours.

Happy now?.

So you mean this source is questionable?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

I'll be happy (bordering on ecstatic) according to your next post.....

OK.Lawrence's post was lousy too.So was mine.

As regards your 600,000 year high on co2 post, so was yours.

Happy now?.

So you mean this source is questionable?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

I'll be happy (bordering on ecstatic) according to your next post.....

If you want we can flick around through time and internet media to find something to suit each our ideas ad infinitetum.

Has this filled your requirement for' estatic or do you need more popcorn before my next post?.

Concidering the article is non contemporary(2008) and loaded, I think we could discount it.

If you want we can flick around through time and internet media to find something to suit each our ideas ad infinitetum.

Has this filled your requirement for' estatic or do you need more popcorn before my next post?.

 

The source was the NOAA?  Not sure how that becomes a 'loaded' source?  I think you need to reconsider.

And no, it's not about flicking through the Internet, it's about the science - as you keep emphasising... apparently except when you are trying (in vain in this case) to score a point.

Concidering the article is non contemporary(2008) and loaded, I think we could discount it.

If you want we can flick around through time and internet media to find something to suit each our ideas ad infinitetum.

Has this filled your requirement for' estatic or do you need more popcorn before my next post?.

 

The source was the NOAA?  Not sure how that becomes a 'loaded' source?  I think you need to reconsider.

And no, it's not about flicking through the Internet, it's about the science - as you keep emphasising... apparently except when you are trying (in vain in this case) to score a point.

We both could be accused of falling into the trap of point scoring.

Don't you agree?.

The old NOAA facts are incorrect.

This picture is fitting

Are we now just allowed to declare anything we don't like as incorrect without any evidence at all? 

 The old NOAA facts are incorrect./quote]

Could you clarify what 'facts' are incorrect?

 The old NOAA facts are incorrect./quote]

Could you clarify what 'facts' are incorrect?

Could you clarify or show me an updated paper where the NOAA say co2 concentration levels are at their highest in 600,000 years.John.

(Are we now just allowed to declare anything we don't like as incorrect without any evidence at all? )From STU.

I do reject your reality.btw STU.

I think both of you might find it difficult to respond in a scientific/evidential manner.

If either of you can find a contemporary(up to date) paper from the NOAA declaring Co2 levels higher than they were 600,000 years ago.I will eat my hat.and my jocks.

 

Edited by user  03 July 2011 23:37:51  | Reason: Not specified

The source was the NOAA? 

The source was the NOAA? 

Show me the present figures from the NOAA.declaring the highest level of co2 in 600.000 years.

I would suggest you change your notion of what you consider current. Science from 2008 is not too old to be considered obsolete, especially when you have presented no evidence that it's incorrect and simply dismissed it out of hand...

Anyway, NOAA considers that information to be up-to-date, as it's still in a video posted on their website: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html (skip to about 3 minutes in for the relevant part). 

If you think it's obsolete you need a better reason than 'it's 3 years old' and 'The source is loaded'.

The source was the NOAA? 

Show me the present figures from the NOAA.declaring the highest level of co2 in 600.000 years.

As Stu has said, 3 year old research about something 600,000 years ago counts as current unless or until further research shows it to be inaccurate.

Sometimes I struggle to understand the positions you take here and this is a gold-plated example.

The source was the NOAA? 

Show me the present figures from the NOAA.declaring the highest level of co2 in 600.000 years.

I would suggest you change your notion of what you consider current. Science from 2008 is not too old to be considered obsolete, especially when you have presented no evidence that it's incorrect and simply dismissed it out of hand...

Anyway, NOAA considers that information to be up-to-date, as it's still in a video posted on their website: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html (skip to about 3 minutes in for the relevant part). 

If you think it's obsolete you need a better reason than 'it's 3 years old' and 'The source is loaded'.

I might even concider a portion of humble pie for dessert.

Sometimes I struggle to understand the positions you take here and this is a gold-plated example.

That's the saddest most whingey, Rant I've heard in a long time. Dev.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

Why would that be AIMSIR?

It seemed to me to be a perfectly pitched piece of irony.

I find it intriguing that you felt it appropriate to comment on Dev's post whilst ignoring completely the extraordinary post by Lawrence that led to my riposte and Dev's post?  Perhaps you would care to enlighten us....

 

OK.Lawrence's post was lousy too.So was mine.

As regards your 600,000 year high on co2 post, so was yours.

Happy now?.

Hey don't associate me with doom and gloom  and by the way I thought my post actually showed the ice-core record; that when shown in total proportions made the so called hockey stick look like a worn out, wet, second hand, pound shop bootlace.

Humans are the pinnacle of this planets history and thankfully any additional Co2 is more than welcolmed to help with better food production which will enable us to crack the ultimate goal-endless energy . That will enable science and the globe to flourish and hopefully allow the future generations a chance of survival , if as history has shown us , things really turn bad. 

For all the doom and gloom of the AGW movement not one ice cream van, deck chair attendent and whelk stool has yet been forced to change route or head for higher ground as a result of catastrophic sea-level rises. yet people still scream we're all going to drown..

Sorry but that's how I see it.