Look… If you have a scientific question or comments on the facts I have presented I will try to help but don’t keep saying that I “don’t understand” or some other kind of waste of my time.
As already mentioned the new policy baseline in the USA and Canada will soon be Climate Realism which I explained in my Substack link, and its now your job to change our position….. not ours to convince you.
I will leave you with another article that was written about a year ago and most of my predictions have come true.…
Nigel, See if you can answer the questions below without googling: 1. What is the greenhouse effect (in a few , or several sentences) ? 2. What is the average global temperature before and after the Industrial Revolution ? 3. What is the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and what was it thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution?
3. Explain or give some examples of other man made or natural systems where several ppm change has a huge impact ?
But quite frankly…. if you had read my material, you would get the same information and it will become clear that we don’t have a climate emergency.
Please study the material and embedded videos below before we communicate further…. There will be a test 😊
Everything I state here is supported with Data… I did not need to google…. I have undertaken a technical review of Climate and I have read the IPCC scientific reports. have you?
Caution… The IPCC scientific reports are the source …….The IPCC policy reports and communications are mostly lies.
I have added a few questions and response that you omitted that are important..
1. What is the greenhouse effect (in a few , or several sentences) ?
In the so-called greenhouse effect …. Water vapor is by far the largest contributor to the so called green house effect .. but in the case of CO2 it has a short bandwidth and we are now close to 88% saturation at the current max 415 PPM level such that any possible GHG effect will be almost zero over past levels.
There are other facts that dispute that CO2 has any significant causation on temperature as data from ice cores shows it’s always the reverse and Temperature controls CO2
As said further CO2 increases cannot affect temperature, but it will improve plant growth where PPM up to 2000ppm would be optimum…. Over life on earth we have see 6000ppm and the biosphere flourished.
So CO2 IS a GHG but a very poor and small contributor and not a significant temperature driver.
It contributes 0.5% of energy forcing at the most 2 W/M2 versus total of 500 W/M2 .....The impact is 0.1deg C per decade (Nothing to be concerned about)
methane in current concentration is even less of a concern.
Most of the temperature change is driven by solar activity and earths orientation and position in the intergalactic system and this has been correlated well in scientific studies.
2. What is the average global temperature before and after the Industrial Revolution ?
Its small…. a degree or maybe two especially when you remove the Heat Island Effect … but global temperatures have been increasing at the same rate for the last 300 years as we moved out of an ice age and long before we were adding industrial CO2.
Also… and this is important.. In the last 10,000 years we have seen 5 similar temperature increases and most of them were same rate and higher than today… and in those periods of high temperatures we flourished…. it was the cold parts that made us struggle.
It certainly was NOT CO2 that caused these cycles…It was clearly solar/planetary activity.
3. What is the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and what was it thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution?
Its not in dispute that we with modern economies have contributed to CO2 but the natural warming of the planet has also contributed, and as already said temperature is not significantly driven by CO2 and its not humanity that has caused the global temperature. All we have done is assisted with the greening of the planet and the improvement of the food supply... and this is a key statement! ..,,,,
An interesting comment…Our pollution has had some reverse effects due to adding aerosols in the atmosphere holding down temperature.. and this is a separate study, and some say is a larger contributor.. So in a way we have participated in holding down temperatures… but pollution is nothing to brag about 😊
This is interesting…… New Thermodynamic studies show that the only way temperature equilibrium on a body such as a planet can change is with more energy input… and that’s the sun! (I will provide a paper if you will read .. Its going to be in the next IPCC reports)
4. Explain or give some examples of other man made or natural systems where several ppm change has a huge impact ?
Yes…we have contributed to local environmental changes with pollution and poor land management that has sometimes changed localized weather, but these changes are local and small and can either be reversed or adapted too……. Again, not a huge threat but improved adaption is key.
5. Has the current climate change (for whatever reason) made life more difficult on this planet.?
On every metric of environmental measurements….. droughts, floods, fires, hurricane, sea level etc. we see either no statistical change in small trends or no trends at all, and some of the trends show declining risk on some metrics over the long range of a climate timeline.
Of course there will be variability. but no macro trend concern, and this has been well published in the IPCC.
Also, our ability to adapt and flourish has improved 10-fold with the use of technology and fossil fuels and so we are far from an emergency.
6. Do we have confidence in our expert projections of the future climate?
So far …..the science is unable to model the future effectively with most models over predicting most risk parameters. Climate models are not “ fit for purpose” in terms of managing risk policies.
Bottom line… NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And a waste of our wealth, and we need to redeploy our policies to only consider focused adaptation to a naturally warming planet.
Bottom line..
No Data exists that shows that our small contribution to the weather or even the climate change has had any significant impact on environmental metrics or human flourishing.
In fact in many cases a naturally warming planet and more CO2 has declined some of these environmental risk factors and improved our flourishing,
Fossil fuels and technology have been instrumental in allowing the growth in population and the quality of life and have vastly improved our adaption to climate changes that have always been part of life on this planet.
Past and present data and most future predictions show that we do not have a climate emergency on this planet.
Our focus must be on far more important issues of prosperity that is the best way to afford a pollution free and sustainable future society.
Wow, was looking for just a short answer, you’ve written a lot of stuff there , some of it factual and some of it just garbage. The key thing to understand for the greenhouse effect is infrared radiation. There’s terrestrial infrared (all objects constantly emit infrared ) and re-radiated infrared when the sun shines on an object. That infrared escapes into outer space but some gets absorbed , most notably by greenhouse gases such as CO2,CH4 (methane) and yes H2O (water vapor). It’s the nature of the covalent bonds in the greenhouse gases that give rise to this absorption, particularly at 15um wavelength. That’s it, that’s the greenhouse affect in a nutshell. You couldn’t answer that which says enough for me that you don’t know what you’re talking about. So much energy you seem to have with so little knowledge. I’ll take a look at your stuff but you are spreading misinformation.
Ok.. as requested read my sources and then see if you can stop being so unscientific with your comments... Its ok to disagree but keep it civil please.
I Wish to add the scienced on CO2 by W Happer and others that shows how CO2 is only a small player in the GH effect and is at 0.1 Deg per decade (1deg per century) and that assumes all the of the CO2 is human made... and we know that a warming planet for whatever reasons releases CO2 that is no real risk and may be good news.
W. H Happer again? Can't you find something else besides the same old canards from an 80 plus year old retired physicist? I discredited his stance during our dialogue months ago, Nigel, but for your convenience, Roger, here's just one sample provided by Happer's peers https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34KQ6M8
You have not discredited anything matey..They can factcheck all they want but fail to dispute the core science of the impact of CO2 on the climate that shows that CO2 is a very small participant in climate change. In the so-called greenhouse effect …. Water vapor is by far the largest contributor to the so called green house effect .. but in the case of CO2 it has a short bandwidth and we are now close to 88% saturation at the current max 415 PPM level such that any possible GHG effect will be almost zero over past levels. There are other facts that dispute that CO2 has any significant causation on temperature as data from ice cores shows it’s always the reverse and Temperature controls CO2. As said further CO2 increases cannot affect temperature, but it will improve plant growth where PPM up to 2000ppm would be optimum…. life on earth has seen 6000ppm and the biosphere flourished. So CO2 IS a GHG but a very poor and small contributor and not a significant temperature driver as it contributes 0.5% of energy forcing of 2 W/M2 versus total of 500 W/M2 .....The impact is 0.1deg C per decade (Nothing to be concerned about)
I also suggest you stay away from the personal attacks..... its not working any more.
Hmmm. listing "facts" is not science, Nigel; did you know that? I'm attacking your sources, Nigel: it's just cherry picking and sloppy logic that does not come even close to providing a theory that can be tested against the models meticulously constructed by the mainstream community of climatologists who are experts in the field and collect relevant data that is used to test those models using something you know nothing about: science. You are just reading the memos provided by the CO2 Coalition and Clintel, neither of which have any scientific credentials, have received no funding from creditable scientific funding sources.
Well Ken you did it again…. You do what alarmist do when they run out of solid data…. they descend to the name calling and false narrative of attempting to discredit sources… don’t bother with silly desmog ….. thats a joke.
We have you done and dusted on data ….The sources we use are either the scientific section of the IPCC or NOAA or NASA. Its just we don’t put a political spin on the Data like the IPCC policy reports do.
And we don’t out right fabricate like the IPCC Mann hockey stick.
If you look at CO2 Coalition presentations you will find they use these sources, and this is also true of Koonin’s book Unsettled that is all from the IPCC .
The other sources we use for Climate impact data showing no adverse trends is from Christy and Spenser (Both highly published) and here is a good example…. Please look at this presentation and tell me if you have data that disagree significantly…
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
Look…. I know you think that we are in the pay of bad actors.. but its getting real old….. our motivation is to seek the truth and not prostrate ourselves with NetZero….
Again…. if you have some actual data to share to review go ahead otherwise we are done.
I am in Ottawa next week assisting with the plans to remove our carbon tax.
There’s no “believing” in climate change, you either understand it or you don’t, clearly you don’t.
Look… If you have a scientific question or comments on the facts I have presented I will try to help but don’t keep saying that I “don’t understand” or some other kind of waste of my time.
As already mentioned the new policy baseline in the USA and Canada will soon be Climate Realism which I explained in my Substack link, and its now your job to change our position….. not ours to convince you.
I will leave you with another article that was written about a year ago and most of my predictions have come true.…
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
Nigel, See if you can answer the questions below without googling: 1. What is the greenhouse effect (in a few , or several sentences) ? 2. What is the average global temperature before and after the Industrial Revolution ? 3. What is the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and what was it thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution?
3. Explain or give some examples of other man made or natural systems where several ppm change has a huge impact ?
OK I will humor you….
But quite frankly…. if you had read my material, you would get the same information and it will become clear that we don’t have a climate emergency.
Please study the material and embedded videos below before we communicate further…. There will be a test 😊
Everything I state here is supported with Data… I did not need to google…. I have undertaken a technical review of Climate and I have read the IPCC scientific reports. have you?
Caution… The IPCC scientific reports are the source …….The IPCC policy reports and communications are mostly lies.
I have added a few questions and response that you omitted that are important..
1. What is the greenhouse effect (in a few , or several sentences) ?
In the so-called greenhouse effect …. Water vapor is by far the largest contributor to the so called green house effect .. but in the case of CO2 it has a short bandwidth and we are now close to 88% saturation at the current max 415 PPM level such that any possible GHG effect will be almost zero over past levels.
There are other facts that dispute that CO2 has any significant causation on temperature as data from ice cores shows it’s always the reverse and Temperature controls CO2
As said further CO2 increases cannot affect temperature, but it will improve plant growth where PPM up to 2000ppm would be optimum…. Over life on earth we have see 6000ppm and the biosphere flourished.
So CO2 IS a GHG but a very poor and small contributor and not a significant temperature driver.
It contributes 0.5% of energy forcing at the most 2 W/M2 versus total of 500 W/M2 .....The impact is 0.1deg C per decade (Nothing to be concerned about)
methane in current concentration is even less of a concern.
Most of the temperature change is driven by solar activity and earths orientation and position in the intergalactic system and this has been correlated well in scientific studies.
2. What is the average global temperature before and after the Industrial Revolution ?
Its small…. a degree or maybe two especially when you remove the Heat Island Effect … but global temperatures have been increasing at the same rate for the last 300 years as we moved out of an ice age and long before we were adding industrial CO2.
Also… and this is important.. In the last 10,000 years we have seen 5 similar temperature increases and most of them were same rate and higher than today… and in those periods of high temperatures we flourished…. it was the cold parts that made us struggle.
It certainly was NOT CO2 that caused these cycles…It was clearly solar/planetary activity.
3. What is the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and what was it thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution?
Its not in dispute that we with modern economies have contributed to CO2 but the natural warming of the planet has also contributed, and as already said temperature is not significantly driven by CO2 and its not humanity that has caused the global temperature. All we have done is assisted with the greening of the planet and the improvement of the food supply... and this is a key statement! ..,,,,
An interesting comment…Our pollution has had some reverse effects due to adding aerosols in the atmosphere holding down temperature.. and this is a separate study, and some say is a larger contributor.. So in a way we have participated in holding down temperatures… but pollution is nothing to brag about 😊
This is interesting…… New Thermodynamic studies show that the only way temperature equilibrium on a body such as a planet can change is with more energy input… and that’s the sun! (I will provide a paper if you will read .. Its going to be in the next IPCC reports)
4. Explain or give some examples of other man made or natural systems where several ppm change has a huge impact ?
Yes…we have contributed to local environmental changes with pollution and poor land management that has sometimes changed localized weather, but these changes are local and small and can either be reversed or adapted too……. Again, not a huge threat but improved adaption is key.
5. Has the current climate change (for whatever reason) made life more difficult on this planet.?
On every metric of environmental measurements….. droughts, floods, fires, hurricane, sea level etc. we see either no statistical change in small trends or no trends at all, and some of the trends show declining risk on some metrics over the long range of a climate timeline.
Of course there will be variability. but no macro trend concern, and this has been well published in the IPCC.
Also, our ability to adapt and flourish has improved 10-fold with the use of technology and fossil fuels and so we are far from an emergency.
6. Do we have confidence in our expert projections of the future climate?
So far …..the science is unable to model the future effectively with most models over predicting most risk parameters. Climate models are not “ fit for purpose” in terms of managing risk policies.
Bottom line… NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And a waste of our wealth, and we need to redeploy our policies to only consider focused adaptation to a naturally warming planet.
Bottom line..
No Data exists that shows that our small contribution to the weather or even the climate change has had any significant impact on environmental metrics or human flourishing.
In fact in many cases a naturally warming planet and more CO2 has declined some of these environmental risk factors and improved our flourishing,
Fossil fuels and technology have been instrumental in allowing the growth in population and the quality of life and have vastly improved our adaption to climate changes that have always been part of life on this planet.
Past and present data and most future predictions show that we do not have a climate emergency on this planet.
Our focus must be on far more important issues of prosperity that is the best way to afford a pollution free and sustainable future society.
Suggested Readings.. (Including video inserts)
The book Unsettled by Koonin
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
Home - CO2 Coalition https://co2coalition.org/
Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy
https://clintel.org/
Wow, was looking for just a short answer, you’ve written a lot of stuff there , some of it factual and some of it just garbage. The key thing to understand for the greenhouse effect is infrared radiation. There’s terrestrial infrared (all objects constantly emit infrared ) and re-radiated infrared when the sun shines on an object. That infrared escapes into outer space but some gets absorbed , most notably by greenhouse gases such as CO2,CH4 (methane) and yes H2O (water vapor). It’s the nature of the covalent bonds in the greenhouse gases that give rise to this absorption, particularly at 15um wavelength. That’s it, that’s the greenhouse affect in a nutshell. You couldn’t answer that which says enough for me that you don’t know what you’re talking about. So much energy you seem to have with so little knowledge. I’ll take a look at your stuff but you are spreading misinformation.
Ok.. as requested read my sources and then see if you can stop being so unscientific with your comments... Its ok to disagree but keep it civil please.
I Wish to add the scienced on CO2 by W Happer and others that shows how CO2 is only a small player in the GH effect and is at 0.1 Deg per decade (1deg per century) and that assumes all the of the CO2 is human made... and we know that a warming planet for whatever reasons releases CO2 that is no real risk and may be good news.
Happer.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ7UZjFDHU&t=1155s watch 19 mins in to the presentation.
So lets focus on CO2 impact and see if you can be re-educated on this first :-)
W. H Happer again? Can't you find something else besides the same old canards from an 80 plus year old retired physicist? I discredited his stance during our dialogue months ago, Nigel, but for your convenience, Roger, here's just one sample provided by Happer's peers https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34KQ6M8
You have not discredited anything matey..They can factcheck all they want but fail to dispute the core science of the impact of CO2 on the climate that shows that CO2 is a very small participant in climate change. In the so-called greenhouse effect …. Water vapor is by far the largest contributor to the so called green house effect .. but in the case of CO2 it has a short bandwidth and we are now close to 88% saturation at the current max 415 PPM level such that any possible GHG effect will be almost zero over past levels. There are other facts that dispute that CO2 has any significant causation on temperature as data from ice cores shows it’s always the reverse and Temperature controls CO2. As said further CO2 increases cannot affect temperature, but it will improve plant growth where PPM up to 2000ppm would be optimum…. life on earth has seen 6000ppm and the biosphere flourished. So CO2 IS a GHG but a very poor and small contributor and not a significant temperature driver as it contributes 0.5% of energy forcing of 2 W/M2 versus total of 500 W/M2 .....The impact is 0.1deg C per decade (Nothing to be concerned about)
I also suggest you stay away from the personal attacks..... its not working any more.
Hmmm. listing "facts" is not science, Nigel; did you know that? I'm attacking your sources, Nigel: it's just cherry picking and sloppy logic that does not come even close to providing a theory that can be tested against the models meticulously constructed by the mainstream community of climatologists who are experts in the field and collect relevant data that is used to test those models using something you know nothing about: science. You are just reading the memos provided by the CO2 Coalition and Clintel, neither of which have any scientific credentials, have received no funding from creditable scientific funding sources.
Well Ken you did it again…. You do what alarmist do when they run out of solid data…. they descend to the name calling and false narrative of attempting to discredit sources… don’t bother with silly desmog ….. thats a joke.
We have you done and dusted on data ….The sources we use are either the scientific section of the IPCC or NOAA or NASA. Its just we don’t put a political spin on the Data like the IPCC policy reports do.
And we don’t out right fabricate like the IPCC Mann hockey stick.
If you look at CO2 Coalition presentations you will find they use these sources, and this is also true of Koonin’s book Unsettled that is all from the IPCC .
The other sources we use for Climate impact data showing no adverse trends is from Christy and Spenser (Both highly published) and here is a good example…. Please look at this presentation and tell me if you have data that disagree significantly…
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYVyU_q9Uo&t=403s
Look…. I know you think that we are in the pay of bad actors.. but its getting real old….. our motivation is to seek the truth and not prostrate ourselves with NetZero….
Again…. if you have some actual data to share to review go ahead otherwise we are done.
I am in Ottawa next week assisting with the plans to remove our carbon tax.