Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I'd be interested in a valid graph of peak daily sun radiation over the last 100 years. Your Wikipedia sourced graph goes back only to 1975 showing a peak radiation over that period between 1990 and 1992.

Peak solar radiation has been observed to have increased with every eleven year sunspot cycle over the last 100 years

ican711nm wrote:

I'd be interested in a valid graph of peak daily sun radiation over the last 100 years. Your Wikipedia sourced graph goes back only to 1975 showing a peak radiation over that period between 1990 and 1992.

I too would be interested in such a graph but because we had no satellites recording the radiation before 1975 I don't know where you would find a valid graph.

Since you claimed...

Quote:

Peak solar radiation has been observed to have increased with every eleven year sunspot cycle over the last 100 years

I would love it if you would provide a valid graph to support your statement. The only valid graph I could find not only doesn't show 100 years but disproves your claim that "every" cycle has seen an increase in radiation since every cycle since 1975 has seen a decrease in radiation.

and lo and behold, the warming trend has sort of plateaued out for approximately the last 6 or 8 years.

This graph seems to show the ocean temps starting to drop?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomOcean.html

okie wrote:

This graph seems to show the ocean temps starting to drop?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomOcean.html

only if you're looking at it upside down.

okie wrote:

This graph seems to show the ocean temps starting to drop?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomOcean.html

only if you're looking at it upside down.

Steve 41oo wrote:

okie wrote:

This graph seems to show the ocean temps starting to drop?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomOcean.html

only if you're looking at it upside down.

Perhaps okie better looked the graphs up at the original site and not via some obscure websites?
National Climatic Data Center

okie.. you do say the darnedest things..

First you claim it has plateaued in the last 6-8 years. Then you provide graphs that show it has done no such thing in the last 6 years let alone 8 years of your graph. Look at 1999 and 2000.

Then you use a one year drop in the ocean temp (in November) as if it supports your 6-8 year claim. Never mind that even with the drop it is still well above the average and above all but 3 brief spikes prior to 1996.

okie wrote:

This graph seems to show the ocean temps starting to drop?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomOcean.html

only if you're looking at it upside down.

I checked your website, Walter, and you need to focus on the graph since 2000. It is almost 2008, and your graph does indeed show a leveling off since 2000.

...

ican711nm wrote:

Where, sir, is your evidence that anything I posted previously is false? Also, I await your evidence that anything I said here is false.

Here is a simple explanation http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html

Feel free to provide your evidence disputing Henry's law.

parados wrote:

okie.. you do say the darnedest things..

First you claim it has plateaued in the last 6-8 years. Then you provide graphs that show it has done no such thing in the last 6 years let alone 8 years of your graph. Look at 1999 and 2000.

Then you use a one year drop in the ocean temp (in November) as if it supports your 6-8 year claim. Never mind that even with the drop it is still well above the average and above all but 3 brief spikes prior to 1996.

I don't know what graphs you are looking at. Yes, look at 1999, but also look at 1998, which was almost 10 years ago, and we are not higher than then, which has been almost a decade ago.

In regard to ocean temps, I doubt ocean temps swing as wildly as air temperatures, so I tend to to pay attention to them. I know you and the rest of the global warmers are very disappointed when the graphs don't go the way you want or expect, but let us at least admit what the graphs are showing here. There is in fact no clear upward trend in the last 6 or 8 years as I said. It does seem to have plateaued out, and I admit it is too soon to say which way it may go from here, but thats where it is now. If you think it is one of the darndest things to actually honestly state what the graphs are showing, then you need to rethink your position here. We are dealing with numbers here, Parados, not politics. You can manipulate politics but not numbers.

Let me amend what I said to you, Parados, about being able to manipulate politics, but not numbers. We have seen manipulation of numbers, at least in terms of the interpretations of them. The old adage comes to mind, figures don't lie, but liars will figure. To be fair, we both choose the numbers that best illustrate the principles we believe are operating here, but hopefully neither of us use non-existent numbers.

http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

Little Warming
with new Global Carbon Cycle Model
by
Peter Dietze
...

Summary
A new global Carbon Cycle Model with a realistic CO2 e-fold lifetime of 55 years (half-life time: 38 years) reveals that the temperature will increase by ~0.3 degC only if the present global CO2 emission is kept constant until 2100. In IPCC scenarios it is assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than is physically recoverable. Using an eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response and taking a double to treble temperature sensitivity, all this has led to an IPCC error factor of up to an order of magnitude. So the projected reduction claims need complete revision. The temperature reduction effect of CO2 and energy taxes planned in Europe will only be ~0.005 degC.

Introduction
One of the main reasons for an assumed future CO2 disaster has been the assumption that this greenhouse gas is accumulating in the atmosphere - leading to the frequently repeated 60% Toronto reduction demand.

It is known that the oceans contain about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere and may take up to nearly 6 times more CO2 at equilibrium and the photosynthesis of land biota may increase up to 18 Gt C/yr for a concentration doubling (three times the present emission). At present, the oceans are still mostly on a pre-industrial level.

The IPCC's "accumulation" hypothesis needs to be firmly contradicted. Suppose we pour water into a bucket that has a hole. Nobody will state from observation that "about half accumulates in the bucket". This fully depends on the hole, the water level and how much we are pouring.
The problem is easily solved when the global carbon cycle is understood as a dynamic system in the manner of control engineering. The atmosphere has a CO2 decay function with a half-life time of about 38 years as will be shown in the following. If the input function is doubling within the same time span the system response would simply be a linear concentration increase. The increase was misunderstood as a nearly irreversible accumulation - one reason that led to hasty conclusions for negotiating an unnecessary global reduction treaty.

...

Conclusions
In figure 3 the total temperature increment (caused by CO2) for a constant 7 Gt C/yr emission from pre-industrial times to 2100 is ~0.7 degC. Discussing the effect of the planned carbon and energy tax in Europe, an emission reduction of 4 to 5% has been estimated - this means 0.7% worldwide. The temperature effect will be ~0.7% of 0.7 degC, ie. 0.005 degC. But the EU taxation will be about US$660 billion within 12 years. This seems absurd as the effect is absolutely unnoticible. Moreover the available fossil fuels will be mostly depleted after 120 to 150 years anyway.

Greenhouse scientists have been using a constant airborne fraction of about 50% instead of a realistic CO2 lifetime, arriving at a nearly doubled concentration increment until 2100. Then, taking over twice the real temperature sensitivity and burning much more than the available carbon, the climate impact is boosted by up to a factor of 9. The same holds true in reverse for reduction claims to stay within a given temperature threshold.

The IPCC burns about 2300 Gt C for scenario S750, though the available fossil reserves are 720 Gt conventional or 1.000 Gt including unconventionals as in the IPCC 1995 WG II Energy Primer [11]. The IPCC reference scenario IS92a burns about 1500 Gt C until 2100. Here IPCC's concentration rises up to 680 ppm [12] - far above the 500 ppm that could be reached at maximum if we assume all the conventional fossil fuel reserves are burnt and 40% of the emission remains in the air for a long time.

Considering a total error factor of an order of magnitude, costly activities for `climate stabilization' and high-end model computing become obsolete. Eddy diffusion and HILDA models fail to produce realistic future sink flows. Observations show that solar variability [13] and associated cloud coverage [14] had significant influence and the IPCC may have overestimated anthropogenic forcing up to a factor of 3. Governments, industries and power utilities should carefully check the IPCC climate models before planning costly measures to solve problems that may be irrelevant.

On the IPCC's present shaky base of knowledge it is irresponsible to alert all nations to sign on to an FCCC reduction treaty that may, for example, cost Germany alone DM765 billion and 275.000 primary jobs (acc. to a study by the renowned RWI Institute, Essen, for the projected 25% reduction till 2005).

So IPCC scientists should in future be more circumspect in their claims to avoid the prospect of millions of people suffering from carbon taxes, lack of energy, unemployment and putting the blame back onto them. There is no doubt: -
Reducing IPCC's global warming is much easier than reducing global CO2 emissions.

parados wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:

Where, sir, is your evidence that anything I posted previously is false? Also, I await your evidence that anything I said here is false.

Here is a simple explanation http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/174temppres.html

Feel free to provide your evidence disputing Henry's law.

We are not debating whether or not the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth has been warming over the past century.

We are debating the principal cause or causes of that warming. You theorize that the principal cause is the CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans. I argue that there are far more significant causes and I have listed them more than once.

You not I have the burden of providing valid evidence to show that we humans must curtail human releases of CO2 iinto the atmosphere in order to limit earth warming. The burden of providing such evidence is yours, because the economic and physical cost to humanity of curtailing CO2 production is great.

I've awaited your presentation of such evidence. Your opinion is not such evidence.

Study the following to obtain evidence both pro and con that human releases of CO2 into the atmosphere are the cause of earth warming.
Then tell me why you think the pro evidence outweighs the con evidence.

The following links were obtained by a search on Solar Cycle Variations:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png

http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

Irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites....

Recently, it appears that solar irradiance is varying in ways that aren't duplicated by changes in sunspot observations or radio emissions. However, this conclusion is disputed. Some believe that shifts in irradiance may be the result of calibration problems in the measuring satellites.[1][2] These speculations also admit the possibility that a small long term trend might exist in solar irradiance, though the data chosen for this plot do not have a significant trend.[3] Also, the differences in flare activity over the three cycles would not be related to possible measurement artifacts in irradiance.

Well, your hypothesis does prove one thing, namely that it is not science. You are just guessing. What you are doing is not science, but rather artistic conceptual sculpting: you assemble back-of-the-envelope truths, which you for subjective, mysterious reasons have chosen to embrace, into a quasi-scientific mosaic which you then present as accepted science. If you insist on presenting your sculptures I demand that you back them up with hard science.