Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • rss
  • Home
  • Open threads
    • Climate – how to use open threads
      • Meteorology
      • Global warming
      • Climate science
        • Papers
        • Atmosphere
        • Temperature records
        • Energy and fuel
        • Solar
        • Ocean heat content
        • Radiation, radiative imbalance
        • Sea levels
        • Ocean acidification
        • Polar regions, glaciers and ice
      • Regions
        • Europe
        • Asia
        • South America
        • Africa
        • Australia
        • UK
        • USA
        • New Zealand
      • News
      • Controversy and scandal
      • Disproving AGW
      • Economics
    • Politics
      • ETS and carbon taxes
    • UN
      • IPCC organisation
      • IPCC politics
      • IPCC science
      • NIPCC
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • News releases
    • February 8, 2010
    • December 20, 2010
  • Climate Realists
    • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
    • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
    • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
    • Newsletter #4 2011
  • Files
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About

Your view of CO2

Vote now in our poll, below

If humanity influences the climate, then the mechanism involves carbon dioxide. There’s nothing else we do that scientists have said might affect the temperature or any other feature of the weather.

But could carbon dioxide dominate the climate? It certainly affects the climate, through raising the temperature a bit — that much is non-controversial. Measuring the temperature increase as it’s introduced to the atmosphere is problematic, but it appears as though the first 120 ppmv has the most effect, about 2.3°C; the next 267 ppmv (more than doubling it) adds less than 0.5°C.

Calculations show that doubling CO2 again, to about 800 ppmv, would add another 0.5°C, but at the current rate of increase it won’t get to that level until 2255.

Some people say the greenhouse effect of CO2 is too small to dominate the climate (it has much less influence than water vapour), while others say that, like a poison in the body, you don’t need much to have a catastrophic effect.

What do you think? Does CO2 dominate the climate?

Vote here

If the voting buttons are absent, you have already voted (or someone on that machine has).

Click Here for PollOnline Survey
| Website Polls
| Email Marketing

| Crowdsourcing Software
View MicroPoll

To comment on the poll, post a comment below.

What now?

Oppose the madness! Spread word of this poll—we’d appreciate your help with that; please tell people you know and email them this link to the poll to come here to vote.

If you have a web site, please consider using this link to our poll. If you have any questions about handling these links, flick me an email to convenor [at] climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz.

Any of that will make a difference. And you’ll be a blimmin’ hero!

Thanks!

Richard Treadgold

Convenor

Ostrich

What do you think? Huh?

Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

10 Responses to “Your view of CO2”

  1. David du Toit says:
    February 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Ha ha ha!

    Your poll only registers NO votes – maybe it even registers YES votes as NO votes!

    What a flippen disgrace – fabricating/manipulating evidence to serve your ideology.

    Reply
    • Richard says:
      February 12, 2010 at 11:52 pm

      Hi David,

      You’re quick to make assumptions, but you are wrong. We have no ideology but truth.

      I can assure there’s no trickery involved, as we don’t host the poll, it’s done offsite by a third party. We have no control over it.

      There is a “no” vote registered now. It is the first one. Perhaps that is your vote. Have another look. When you reload the page the updated voting results will be visible.

      If you’re still unhappy, please leave another comment.

      Thank you for visiting. Perhaps you can record your opinions on one of the articles.

      Cheers,
      Richard Treadgold.

      Reply
    • Richard C (NZ) says:
      September 17, 2011 at 9:28 am

      David du Toit, poll results at this comment date/time

      NO: 128
      YES: 9

      Ha ha ha!

      And your ideology is?

      Reply
  2. G/S. Williams says:
    February 24, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Hi, Richard,

    Regarding your polls, referring to the iceberg one, what about naming a group of icebergs as “a melt of icebergs”; after all, once they have broken off whatever they will have started to melt.

    Keep up the good work.
    GSW

    Reply
    • Richard says:
      February 24, 2010 at 9:31 am

      Hi G/S,

      Yes, I agree it’s a good candidate. “Melt” is one of the options in our poll, go ahead and vote for it if you wish.

      Richard.

      Reply
  3. Barry Brill says:
    February 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Richard – a small challenge on one point. You say that CO2 atmospheric concentration will reach 800ppm by 2255 “at the current rate of increase”.

    But the current rate won’t continue. It’s quite closely correlated with global population – which demographers tell us will reach a maximum of nearly 9 billion by about 2050, then reduce to 7.5 billion by 2100. So, on this basis alone, the rate of increase will reduce in 40 years and keep going down thereafter.

    Then the second greatest contributor to the rate increase is “carbon intensity”. China says they will reduce theirs by at least 45% within 10 years, and India is expecting to do almost as well. These are the 2 largest future emitters.

    The G20 and others have stated that they don’t want the current level of 285ppm to rise above 350ppm during the next century. On any reasonable set of forecasts, the world will meet that target very comfortably.

    Reply
    • Richard says:
      February 24, 2010 at 1:31 pm

      Excellent news, Barry, thank you! I am pleased to be corrected on these figures, since they were causing some anxiety — distant, but anxiety nonetheless.

      Reply
  4. FijiDave says:
    March 18, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Barry Brill: “… current level of 285ppm to rise above 350ppm ”

    Shouldn’t that be 385 (or 388) and 450 ppm respectively?

    Just asking.

    Reply
  5. Richard says:
    March 18, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Good point, FijiDave. Now that you draw my attention to it, I think you could be right. Current level is 388 and the number 450 is a popular one.

    Reply
  6. Maurice@TheMount says:
    September 16, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    One day we will bring all the Carbon Clowns to reality.
    Atmospheric CO2 (Plant Food) is a necessity for all life on earth, and currently earths
    atmosphere is CO2 (Plant Food) impoverished, all life on earth would benefit with more of it.
    CO2 is PLANT FOOD….FACT FACT FACT.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Thanks to WordShine for hosting our site:
   WordShine for polished writing
   WordShine for academic editing
   WordShine to say what you mean

Hot off the press

  • NZ temperature record — it’s worse than we thought
  • The fallacy is strong in that one
  • More about the NZ temperature record
  • Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Mother of a hoax
  • Mass matters
  • Public opinion at tipping point
  • Insensitive climate
  • In the beginning was the Warming
  • No global warming in New Zealand
  • My precious
  • Credible source, credible argument, credible doubt
  • NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence
  • More mindless moping on the Maldives
  • Climate lies in high places
  • A case of the blind leading the climatologists
  • A letter to Gavin Schmidt goes unanswered
  • Real Climate smashes methane disaster theory
  • Recruiting AR5 reviewers on ‘spoofed’ IPCC website
  • Letter to the editor

Latest comments

  • Nick on Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Nick on Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • Richard C (NZ) on Polar regions, glaciers and ice
  • Richard Treadgold on NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence
  • Richard C (NZ) on Europe
  • Andy on NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence
  • Andy on New Zealand
  • Richard Treadgold on New Zealand
  • John in NZ on New Zealand
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • Andy on Europe
  • Andy on Asia
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • Mike Jowsey on Wind turbine failures
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • Richard C (NZ) on Wind turbine failures
  • Richard C (NZ) on NZ temperature record — it’s worse than we thought
  • Richard C (NZ) on Climate science

PayPal Tip Jar
To support what we do here,
please drop us a tiny tip. Thank you!

Thank you
To those who've been so generous,
I'm humbled. Thanks!


Click to get your own widget

Tags

ACT Activists AGW Air temperature Australia Barry Brill BOM Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading CCG blog Chris de Freitas Christopher Monckton Climate Conversation Group Climate profiteering Climate research Climate Science Court action Data quality Disproving AGW Energy supply ETS Glaciers Global warming Hot Topic IPCC Joanne Nova New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Peter Gluckman Rajendra Pachauri Royal Society Roy Spencer Sceptics Science bias Sea ice Sea levels UK United Nations Watts Up With That Wind turbines

Categories

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Climate change links

  • Bishop Hill
  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)
  • Climate Realists
  • Global warming at a glance
  • Jo Nova
  • Kiwi Thinker
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Science of Doom
  • Watts Up With That

 

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Previous posts

Oil prices

StatCounter

 
StatCounter
hits
rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox