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

... while we also virtually ignore water vapor.

Foxfyre wrote:

... that we all sensed was based on bad science motivated by flawed political goals and at least partially financed by people with less than noble motives.

So you would consider e.g.

Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs

as being a "good girl" while

Anthony Bergin, the research director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and co-author of the 2007 report A Change in Climate for the Australian Defence Force

is a "bad guy" from the group you described above?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

okie wrote:

Auto mechanics learn that principle first as part of diagnosing any problem.

I always contact mine first if I've scientific questions.

The point, which is common sense, applies to any scientific or mechanical problem. Look at the most common or direct probabilities first. For example, if your house is too cold or too hot, first check the thermostat instead of calculating the amount of insulation in your walls. If the car quits running, first check to see if you ran out of gas before checking the spark plug wires or the timing.

Here we have a situation with Earth heating up very very slightly, also Mars and other celestial bodies showing a heating trend. Duh, just maybe it is the solar cycle here that is the chief culprit? Is that a slight possibility, Walter, or does it make more sense to invest all of our resources into calculating the effects of CO2, which by the way is a very minor constituent of the atmosphere, while we also virtually ignore water vapor. This whole issue has been handled very, very badly by the scientists and the media. No common sense has been applied by the Al Gores of the world.

okie wrote:

... while we also virtually ignore water vapor.

Don't tell me such: my uncle found in 1913/4 [PhD-thesis published] the 'Hinteler-effect' (published - together with Schmidt - in Zeitschrift für physikalische Chemie, 91, 103 [1916]), something about the adsorption of water vapor.

"Unfortunately" (he died due to illnesses he got in the Great War in the early 20's) his results were overturned from 1926 onwards :wink:

To your knowledge, any connection / contact between the two?

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. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

No. We are still here. I read this thread daly. I'm still not impressed with any of the junk science. Currently reading a book on the topic and reading the IPCC 2007 report from front to back.

What's the phrase? "Keep honking, Im reloading."

Since I'm here I thought I'd post a definition.

IPCC wrote:

T
Keep honking.
O

... rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from these greenhouse gases of about + 1 W m2 over the past four decades ...

The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m2 ...

Interesting, considering the fact that the sun's irradiance increased about + 1 W/m~2 over the last 30 years 1975 to 2005.

Professor Vaughan predicted in 1993 that the northern part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf would be lost within 30 years if climate warming continued. But he said it is happening more quickly than he expected.

He told BBC News: "What we're actually seeing is a chunk of the ice shelf drop off in a way that suggests it is not just a normal part of iceberg formation.

"This is not a sea level rise issue, but is yet another indication of climate change in the Antarctic Peninsula and how it is affecting the environment."

Scientists say the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Southern Ocean towards the tip of South America, has experienced unprecedented warming over the last 50 years.

Several ice shelves have retreated in the past 30 years - six of them collapsing completely.

Quote:

Interesting, considering the fact that the sun's irradiance increased about + 1 W/m~2 over the last 30 years 1975 to 2005.

Interesting that you don't have a source for this.


But then that's nothing new from you ican.
You will hem and haw and then present information that doesn't support your statement before you pretend you never said it in the first place.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Figure 1 in this quite clearly shows there is no +1 w increase from 1975-2005 as you claimed ican. But that isn't a surprise since you have consistently made claims not supported by facts.

There is a 1 w variation based on the 11 year cycle but no 1 watt increase from 1975 to 2005 since both are at or near the low end of the cycle. The 1976-2007 shows a decrease in TSI of about .25 if we are looking at the low ends of the cycles.

Ican711nm - since you seem to find lots of pretty charts can you find any of those charts non-dimentionalized to a particular year's value? Do you have any that include deforrestation? What about land ice?

All on one graph?

If you can find one, it would prodive actual perspective on the evidence.

Thank you
K
O

Solar irradiance 1975 = 1370.5 w/m~2.

Solar irradiance 2005 = 1371.5 w/m~2.

Diest TKO wrote:

Ican711nm - since you seem to find lots of pretty charts can you find any of those charts non-dimentionalized to a particular year's value? Do you have any that include deforrestation? What about land ice?

All on one graph?

If you can find one, it would prodive actual perspective on the evidence.

Thank you
K
O

Aah "perspective!" I'm all for it.



Composite versus CO2 activity

In the event you would like more, please goto:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
and browse.