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

Foxfyre wrote:

Until the AGW religionists are willing to look and consider ALL the science instead of using poorly supported arguments to deny anything other than that they want to believe, I think there will be no best solution to all this forthcoming.

People in the glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

0 Replies

No they shouldn't Walter. I hope that was directed at Parados, however, as the AGW skeptics on this thread have been reading and looking at ALL the evidence and discussing at some length why some data is persuasive and why some data appears to be flawed. They are at least willing to consider that some data is being used inappropriately or in a way as to distort other more credible data.

I know I have read until I'm crosseyed on this subject and, despite my lack of technical expertise here, I am convinced that the skeptics have the better case at this time. I keep waiting for the pro-AGW religionists to make a better case for their point of view. Instead, they seem to try to be discrediting or insulting the skeptics and taking cheap shots as you seem to have just done.

0 Replies

Well, Foxfyre, at least you studied biology and certainly understand these matters better than someone like me.

And since I lack that knowledge, I tend to trust the huge predominant scientific opinion more than those of some funny sceptics.

But certainly e.g. Copernicus and Darwin have been labelled 'funny' at their as well - I truely can have a wrong opinion.

0 Replies

All I can suggest to that, Walter, is that you look up the definition to strawman

0 Replies

Here is an interesting article about the global temperatures.
Its from NOAA.

Quote:

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

And here is an interesting commentary about the IPCC...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Quote:

However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

Quote:

I dont claim to be an expert on the climate, like so many of you seem to be, but I found both articles interesting.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

All I can suggest to that, Walter, is that you look up the definition to strawman

And he got a wrong opinion as well?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
All I can suggest to that, Walter, is that you look up the definition to strawman

And he got a wrong opinion as well?

He certainly appears to have gotten a wrong opinion about anything I've said.

0 Replies

All the science Fox..

Does it reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to keep forests instead of clearing them for agriculture by burning them?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

All the science Fox..

Does it reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to keep forests instead of clearing them for agriculture by burning them?

According to your version it wouldn't as you say plants are a zero sum game. Of course you have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate that theory.

But setting that aside, there is nothing in the IPCC recomendations suggesting that only countries who agree not to reduce the amount of vegetation on their land should be eligible for carbon credits. Maybe that could be based on the fact that agricultural plants are as effective as any other plants in removing CO2 from the atmosphere? The fact that there is a lot of vegetaton at all seems to be good enough for them. There is no doubt that burning any carbon based fuel will release CO2 into the atmosphere, but then regenerating vegetation is more efficient in removing CO2 than is static amounts of vegetation especially after it has achieved full maturity and is beginning to decline. So perhaps burning off the old to make way for the new is also near a zero sum game. I read one suggestion recently that it is good to cut down old mature trees in decline to make room for new growing trees; however you can't use the wood for firewood or for any other purpose that requires large amounts of energy. So that's a tough one.

I have read that Ducks Unlimited gives rewards to landowners who do not til pristine prairie though I wonder how much difference that actually makes? Then of course there is the issue of how environmentally unfriendly a cheery fire on a cold winter night is because it definitely releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

But then of course if we wind back to the pre-industrial age to reduce CO2, what will we use to heat our homes other than wood and coal?

It all definitely is a puzzlement.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Prior to 1850 there was no forest management in Yellowstone.

What part of CO2 was constant for centuries prior to man's interference don't you get? Natural sources and sinks of CO2 provide for a fairly constant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. When man starts clearing forests that would normally not burn and burning fossil fuel it contributes to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Go ahead and play stupid okie. You do it rather well.

I simply pointed out the fallacy of some of your arguments, call them stupid to your own detriment. I simply made the point that fire suppression in forests can be unhealthy for forests, that some burning is healthy and natural. Many forest fires start from lightning and always have, previous to 1850 as well, and my point about Yellowstone was that it was an example of a very unhealthy forest because of man's artificial suppression of fire, until it was so out of balance that it was impossible to prevent burning. Massive fires burned in that region I believe in 1988, and mostly from lightning I believe. Look it up.

And as Foxfyre has pointed out, your arguments are circular, that plants do not absorb any more CO2 than they produce, yet you claim planting more trees will help, your reasoning is that it will "buy time" to allow the CO2 to be absorbed faster for a number of years to bring things into balance before the trees start dying. You ignore the likelihood that a percentage will die prematurely, and or burn because of natural forest fires, etc. Regardless of how long they live, the theory of "buying time" is a pretty weak argument, and has no proof that what few trees we could plant would amount to a hill of beans.

If you went on a massive tree planting binge all around the world, enough to really make a difference short term, how much fuel and energy would it take to do it, and how much fuel would be required to manage the forests, and how much agricultural land and food production would be lost? There are so many holes in your wild assumptions that it is staggering?

0 Replies

February temps are in, and not showing much warming.

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

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

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

0 Replies

parados wrote:

parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K INCREASE 1975 TO 2005
287.0281 °K + 0.6365 °K = 287.6646 °K. That's a 0.2217% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
331 ppm + 48 ppm = 379 ppm. That's a [14.98%] increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.

Could you comment on this statement High Seas? I would love to see if you think CO2 can increase only [14.98%] in ppm at the same time it increases 100% in BMT as ican just claimed.

Please post a link to the source for your numbers.
...

ICAN did not claim that "CO2 can increase only [14.98%] in ppm at the same time it increases 100% in BMT." But this claim is implied by the data IPCC claims to be true. I think IPCC's data is false.

The following percentages are calculated by ICAN from data contained in the links specified.

FOR THE 30 YEAR PERIOD, 1975 TO 2005[/size]
%increase in average global temperature = 0.2217%.
%increase of CO2ppm in atmosphere = 14.98%.
%increase in metric tons of CO2 retained in the atmosphere = 100%.
=============================================================
AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K INCREASE 1975 TO 2005 - Notes 1 & 2.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
287.0281 °K + 0.6365 °K = 287.6646 °K. That's a 0.2217% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005 - Note 3.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
330.54 ppm + 49.52 ppm = 380.06 ppm. That's a 14.98% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005 - Notes 4 & 5.
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.
=============================================================
TEMPERATURE °K - Notes 1 & 2.
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature in
degees Kelvin = 13.9°C+ 273.16°K = 287.06°K.
Ta = global temperature average 1901 to 2000 = 287.06°K.
Tan75 = global temperature anomaly 1975 = - 0.0319°K.
Tan05 = global temperature anomaly 2005 = + 0.6046°K.
T75 = Ta + Tan75 = 287.06°K - 0.0319°K = 287.0281°K.
T05 = Ta + Tan05 = 287.06°K + 0.6046°K = 287.6646°K.
Ti = T05 - T75 = 287.6646°K - 287.0281°K = 0.6365°K
Ti% = %increase in average global temperature = 100% x Ti / Ta = 100% x 0.6365°K / 287.06°K = 0.2217%.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM - Note 3.
C1 = CO2 density 1975 = 330.54 ppm.
C2 = CO2 density 2005 = 380.06 ppm.
Ci = C2 - C1 = 380.06 ppm - 330.54 ppm = 49.52 ppm.
Ci% = %increase of CO2ppm in atmosphere = 100% x Ci / C1 = 100% x 49.52 ppm / 330.54 ppm = 14.98%.

CARBON DIOXIDE BILLIONS OF TONS -- 4 & 5.
Mo = Billions of tons CO2 entered into the atmosphere by humans as of 1975 = 305/2 = 152.5
M1 = Billions of tons CO2 retained in the atmosphere by humans as of 1975 = Mo/2 = 76.25
M2 = Billions of tons CO2 entered into the atmosphere by humans 1975 to 2005 = 152.5
M3 = M2 retained in the atmosphere during 1975 to 2005 = 152.5 / 2 = 76.25
Mri% = %increase in metric tons of CO2 retained in the atmosphere 1975 to 2005 over what was retained as of 1975 = 100% x M3 / M1 =
100%.

Note 1.

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F) ...

Note 2.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
1975 thru 2005 Yearly Average Mean Measurements of Temperature Anomalies
1975 = -0.0319

2005 = +0.6046

Note 3.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 PPM INCREASE
Year Month Average
1975 12 = 330.54
...
2005 12 .= 380.06

Note 4.

Quote:

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
Emissions of Carbon from Human Activities
Several human activities release CO2 into the atmosphere (called anthropogenic, human-origin, emissions). Fossil-fuel burning is the predominant anthropogenic source of CO2, but cement production and other activities also contribute (including the "land-use" activity of deforestation). Using a combination of modern and historic data, scientists estimate that humans have sent a total of 305 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since 1751; half of these emissions have occurred since the mid-1970s.[305/2 = 152.5]

About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered "sinks" in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.[152.5/2 =76.25]

Note 5.

Quote:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
He [Essenhigh] cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide ...

==============================================================
What is the scientifically validated formula for computing how much of an average global temperature increase will will result from a given CO2 ppm increase in the atmosphere Question

What is the scientifically validated formula for computing how much of an average global temperature increase will will result from a given CO2 metric ton increase in the atmosphere Question

==============================================================

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

What is the scientifically validated formula for computing how much of an average global temperature increase will will result from a given CO2 metric ton increase in the atmosphere
==============================================================

I don't think there is one, icann, because there are too many unknowns. For one thing, water vapor is by far the major greenhouse factor, for which we have little or no historical data. I think it makes no mathematical sense to even attempt to calculate the effect of one factor that is approximately 1/20th of another factor for which we have no reliable data to plug into the formula.

First of all, the term, "greenhouse," is a misnomer as applied to the atmosphere, so it is my opinion that the exact behavior of how gases influence temperature or heat is as yet poorly understood. This is a science that is in its infancy in terms of serious study and analysis. Secondly, as pointed out above the most important factor is water vapor which is poorly known in terms of historical trend and behavior. A quote from the following:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

"Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."

0 Replies

The Glaciers melt 'at fastest rate in past 5,000 years'.

I could imagine that this is just another natural thing - but it's just nothing which looks ... pretty, at least.

0 Replies

ican states..

Quote:

ICAN did not claim that "CO2 can increase only [14.98%] in ppm at the same time it increases 100% in BMT." But this claim is implied by the data IPCC claims to be true. I think IPCC's data is false.

Ican then posts ZERO, that would be 0, links to the IPCC report

The only thing I see in your posts ican is you can't even support your simple claim about the IPCC numbers.

0 Replies

Do you bother to read what you posted ican..

Quote:

%increase in metric tons of CO2 retained in the atmosphere = 100%.

Yes, that is true but it isn't what you posted with the numbers when you FIRST posted them. You said this..

Quote:

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
331 ppm + 48 ppm = 379 ppm. That's a [14.98%] increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.

The increase in the atmosphere is NOT the same as increase in CO2 retained in the atmosphere.

It seems you DID claim the CO2 increases 14.98% in ppm at the same time it increased 100% in BMT. There is no other way to read your statements. Your own correction shows you did it wrong the first time.

0 Replies

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Front Matter
Summary for Policymakers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Technical Summary
Frequently Asked Questions (extracted from chapters below)

Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Chapter 3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Chapter 4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Chapter 5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate
Chapter 7 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation
Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Chapter 10 Global Climate Projections
Chapter 11 Regional Climate Projections

Annexes: (1)Glossary, (2)Authors, (3)Reviewers, (4)Acronyms

Index

Uncertainty Guidance Note for the Fourth Assessment Report

Errata for the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report

Figures

0 Replies

Note 1.

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F) ...

Note 2.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
1975 thru 2005 Yearly Average Mean Measurements of Temperature Anomalies
1975 = -0.0319

2005 = +0.6046

Note 3.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 PPM INCREASE
Year Month Average
1975 12 = 330.54
...
2005 12 .= 380.06

Note 4.

Quote:

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
Emissions of Carbon from Human Activities
Several human activities release CO2 into the atmosphere (called anthropogenic, human-origin, emissions). Fossil-fuel burning is the predominant anthropogenic source of CO2, but cement production and other activities also contribute (including the "land-use" activity of deforestation). Using a combination of modern and historic data, scientists estimate that humans have sent a total of 305 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since 1751; half of these emissions have occurred since the mid-1970s.[305/2 = 152.5]

About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered "sinks" in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2.[152.5/2 =76.25]

Note 5.

Quote:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
He [Essenhigh] cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide ...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Glaciers melt 'at fastest rate in past 5,000 years'.

Melting of 30 glaciers while just India has 10 thousand glaciers! I call it massive cherry picking.
BTW, I doubt their "fastest in past 5,000 years" is nothing more than cheap sensationnalism. The Swiss who have long and consistent data... for the past 200 years for their glacier show that retreat & advance are cyclical: most glaciers retreat around 1900 when emission was not a problem, then advance in the 1980 when it was supposed to be an "unprecedented" warming. Peskey reality Rolling Eyes

http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/live/messnetz/lc_stat_en.png

0 Replies

IPCC report

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Front Matter

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Summary for Policymakers

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Technical Summary

The IPCC Report contains these contradictions:

1. These three are contradictory--
FOR THE 30 YEAR PERIOD, 1975 TO 2005
%increase in average global temperature = 0.2217%.
%increase of CO2ppm retained in atmosphere = 14.98%.
%increase in metric tons of CO2 retained in the atmosphere = 100%.

2. These two are contradictory--
The IPCC Report represents a consensus of the world's scientists.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
...
INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.
...

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know