Piers Corbyn Article at BBC

Article on Piers Corbyn’s stuff at the BBC. Not found and better detail elsewhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climates_magnetic_attraction.html

That one thing is CO2.

It is claimed that humans are responsible for Climate Change because of our CO2 emissions and that we need to have limits imposed because we need to reduce our emissions of CO2.

So first simply ask yourself this:

Can CO2 trap in heat?

Answer: NO, nothing traps in heat, substances can only absorb and re-emit heat but they cannot trap heat.

Next question, does CO2 absorb heat more strongly than the other gasses in the atmosphere?

Answer: NO, CO2 is only 0.03811% of the atmosphere and remains as solid ice up to a temperature of 194.65 K

Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere on the other hand, begin to melt at temperatures as low as 50-60 K and so are much stronger absorbers of heat and at the same time, make up most of the atmospheric gasses.

This puts the effect of CO2 into context. CO2 cannot trap heat as no gasses in the atmosphere can. CO2 is a tiny proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, so tiny in fact that compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen it is barely noticeable. The effect of such tiny amounts of CO2 being a much weaker absorber of heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, also show that the warming effect of CO2 is insignificant.

So the final question is, are we responsible for Climate Change through our CO2 emissions?

Answer: NO WE MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.

Take that to Copenhagen!

If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book

http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

1. Ryan Maue’s cyclone energy index from 1979 to the present shows that activity peaked in the early 1990s and again about 2005 but is now lower than any time in the past. Given the period he covers corresponds to the period satellites were used to estimate cyclonic activity it is easy to see how people could have believed that increasing temperatures were leading to increased activity.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

2. At the climatedata .info site there is an analysis of storms which made landfall in the USA since 1850. This has a similar form to Ryan’s Northern Hemisphere index for the last 30 years but shows that these years had less activity than almost the whole of the last century and a half.
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/tropicalcyclones.html

Is there a list of global stations that is used by GIStemp to calculate earth’s av temperature and where is it accessible?

For many years Environment Canada and NAV Canada/Transport Canada have been reducing the numbers of live weather observation stations and flight service stations respectively. Some have been replaced by automated stations, which definitely have their limitations. It would be interesting to see what raw data might still exist for the Far North.

Anthony – Your image additions are often interesting. This XKCD image rates a +F3. E? I don’t do E.

It was the most long-lived (its track was an incredible 219 miles) ever recorded in the world, and the deadliest tornado disaster in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado

Eyewitnesses report not seeing a funnel, but a boiling fog that covered the horizon.

That was 1925. [AGW back then was real strong, you see.]

And yet THIS year’s tornado season? Just like the hurricane season for the Atlantic.

Rather boring and non-eventful.

Well….at more CO2 ppm than ever (and definitely more than 1925) and heading toward the tipping point…this “stormchaser’s hell”…must be caused by AGW too.

Hmmm. Something’s fishy.

Why doesn’t “fraud” cover…..??

They try pyramid-sheme scam artists when they dupe out people…and PROFIT off of the process.

Bank execs and Enron execs are tried when they squander the public trust.

——————-

Al Gore should be tried.

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

In both movies, teams of storm chasers attempt to place sensor devices in the path of a tornado in order to get a swarm of them sucked up into the funnel cloud.

In the real world, some storm chasers have been attempting a similar feat, but with the equipment staying (hopefully) on the ground.

Here’s my idea for a sure-fire method of injecting things into a tornado. Replace the warhead on a TOW missile then fire it into the storm.

The payload could be anything from active sensor devices transmitting data to pieces of radar reflective chaff. Make the chaff pieces all the same size and it’d be simpler to calculate exact wind speeds using doppler radar.

Without knowing in advance the size of raindrops and debris, along with the exact radar reflectivity of debris, there’s some uncertainty in speed calculations.

Firing in some “calibrated debris” that’s too lightweight to cause any damage would be a very useful addition to the toolbox of meteorologists.

Taking this to the next level – finding out if it’s possible to disrupt or weaken tornadoes of various sizes with various sizes of explosives, detonated in different parts of the funnel clouds.

Indeed. Decreasing tornado frequency and severity is reasonably good evidence that global warming is actually occurring. Whether this warming is AGW is another question entirely.

However, to admit that many, if not most, consequences of GW are benign or beneficial in terms of the weather undermines the case for the need to ‘act’ on GW.