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

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes I am serious. I had not seen any reference on this thread or anywhere else until I hunted down the information myself that the same folks who wrote the IPCC report did not write the Summary for Policy Makers. Did you mention that somewhere that I missed? I bet you didn't.

I am guessing that few, if any, posting on this thread were aware of that themselves until this week.

I plead inattention that I was unaware of the Summary for Policymakers as a separate document from the IPCC report. I don't know if that was ever made clear before, but if it was, I did miss it. I was gone from A2K for about six months of this thread and probably missed a lot during that time, but it just never registered on me that the two documents were not part of the same thing until now or that the Summary for Policymakers was a separate thing from rather than a summary of the IPCC report.

I know better now.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I am serious. I had not seen any reference on this thread or anywhere else until I hunted down the information myself that the same folks who wrote the IPCC report did not write the Summary for Policy Makers. Did you mention that somewhere that I missed? I bet you didn't.

I am guessing that few, if any, posting on this thread were aware of that themselves until this week.

I plead inattention that I was unaware of the Summary for Policymakers as a separate document from the IPCC report. I don't know if that was ever made clear before, but if it was, I did miss it. I was gone from A2K for about six months of this thread and probably missed a lot during that time, but it just never registered on me that the two documents were not part of the same thing until now or that the Summary for Policymakers was a separate thing from rather than a summary of the IPCC report.

And perhaps you missed the related reports in the media as well.

I know better now.

Well, it is very clear for those who read the report (and the summary).
It's clear for those, who follwed the news (about the report and the summary).

But regardless how long you've been away (and besides that, I neither can remember if it was mentioned nor do I fancy to look it up), I forgot that you mentioned recently, you didn't read the texts.

I'd thought you to be better informed since ...

My bad.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Well I've never been as perfect, as well read, as well informed, as well educated as you and a few others Walter, as you frequently point out, and you and others have been very good to keep me fully informed of how ignorant and inadequate I am. I don't remember to thank you for that often enough. I presume that you HAVE read the entire IPCC report as well as the Summary for Policy Makers and fully understand everything offered there. I apologize for failing to notice your posts explaining the political purposes for the Summary for Policymakers and the problems with them as expressed by the ISPN. I'm sure you meticulously did that and I just missed it.

Again, as I previously confessed, I am too stupid to understand all the scientific material included in the IPCC report, and alas I am dependent on those who do understand it to summarize what I don't understand into layman's language for me.

Again I sincerely apologize for my inadequacies and thank you for pointing them out.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I've never been as perfect, as well read, as well informed, as well educated as you and a few others Walter, as you frequently point out, and you and others have been very good to keep me fully informed of how ignorant and inadequate I am. I don't remember to thank you for that often enough. I presume that you HAVE read the entire IPCC report as well as the Summary for Policy Makers and fully understand everything offered there. I apologize for failing to notice your posts explaining the political purposes for the Summary for Policymakers and the problems with them as expressed by the ISPN. I'm sure you meticulously did that and I just missed it.

Again, as I previously confessed, I am too stupid to understand all the scientific material included in the IPCC report, and alas I am dependent on those who do understand it to summarize what I don't understand into layman's language for me.

Again I sincerely apologize for my inadequacies and thank you for pointing them out.

Thanks for that piece of American humour, Foxfyre. Better than our tv evening programs.

[Well, I read some the IPCC reports but admit a) not every word, b) in German and c) I forgot e.g. what was written in 2001 or even earlier.

I read the Summaries for Policy Makers - completely, since they are shorter. Nut in German, too. And here also I have to admit that I forgot a lot, especially of the earliest summaries/reports.

I don't see any reason why I should post or would have posted any explainings about these papers.

I don't understand all and everything of this scientific stuff as well, and I often have to look up this and that in my old books from meteorology classes at the naval college.

But: .... never mind.]

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

........................
I don't understand all and everything of this scientific stuff as well, and I often have to look up this and that in my old books from meteorology classes at the naval college.

Walter - surely those meteorology books mentioned that from time to time, it rains? Or perhaps you noticed it yourself by getting wet while outdoors?

Quote:

water vapor is responsible for 95%, and CO2 for 3.5% of the greenhouse heat retention. When natural CO2 is subtracted, then the man-generated CO2 contributes just 0.117%. That is 0.117% of the total greenhouse effect, probably too small to detect any change elimination of this might impart.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139377778581619.html

If you haven't noticed humidity in the air, though, I know you must have noticed that CO2 is produced each time you exhale - no more exhaling, no more showers, sounds like a short life expectancy is ahead Smile

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I realize you think you are serious Fox but unless you want to claim you don't remember your own posts, it makes it a little hard for the rest of us to believe you haven't been aware of it before this week

Quote:

Not only has it been mentioned on this thread before,
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-302
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-213
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-170

But you posted about it yourself Fox in another thread.
http://able2know.org/topic/26929-13#post-1143297
And you posted about it on this thread here
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-223#post-2518916

Some of the Links to the summary in this thread can be found in the following
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-456
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-474
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-456

I first posted a link to the summary in Aug of 2006
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-148#post-2239936

Since you now claim to have read the Summary Fox. Why don't you comment on it yourself instead of relying on what other people say?

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-672#post-3644637

1 Reply

@High Seas,

An interesting if not somewhat wrong point of view there High Seas.

But when you misuse the data it is easy to make wrong assumptions.

CO2 has increased by 18% since 1960 but according to your source only 3% of the CO2 increase since 1850 have been man made.

Based on other records, CO2 has done from 285 in 1850 to the present 381. It seems an abuse of the statistics to claim only a small amount of that increase was caused by man, don't you think High Seas?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/co2table.html

1 Reply

@parados,

I know you think you are seriously exposing what I do and do not remember, Parados, but none of those links change anything I have said about my understanding of the IPCC report and Summary for Policymakers. In fact I couldn't even find posts of mine in some of links you linked that I checked.

I fully confess that I don't remember everything I've posted over the years on A2K and frequently run across one of my old posts that I didn't remember making at all. You are certainly more perfect than most Parados as you have never ever seen it necessary to admit an error you have made. I've already confessed that I am far less perfect, intelligent, well read, educated that the rest of you. Isn't that sufficent for you?

I do recall and have posted numerous opinions of scientists who take issue with the IPPC reports and, as I now realize, the different Summary for Policymakers. I will no doubt continue to do so. But as I said I am stupid. And I did not until now make the correct distinction between those two documents.

Count your blessings that you NEVER misread or misunderstand or misrepresent anything. I wish I was so blessed.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But as I said I am stupid.

I hope I don't misread or misunderstand that statement by you.

0 Replies

@parados,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CAD Trend 1958-2008

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

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

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
266
Dr. Wilson Flood, of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a chemistry education consultant, wrote that it is an "unproven hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas levels are largely responsible for climate change" in a June 27, 2007 letter to the Scotsman newspaper. "Further Met Office data also shows that global temperatures have actually fallen slightly in the last decade and have shown no statistically significant rise since 1990. Just to cap it all, NASA studies show that atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas methane are falling, not rising. All of the above are easily verifiable and fly in the face of the conventional wisdom. But, hey, we shouldn't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of what politicians believe, should we?" Flood wrote. (LINK) In the May 2006 edition of Education in Chemistry, Flood explained, "Of all the scientific disciplines, chemistry equips us best to grasp the essentials of the global warming debate. After all global warming comes down to the absorption of infrared radiation by organic molecules, coupled with the mole concept which allows us to convert tonnes of fossil fuels into tonnes of carbon dioxide." Flood continued, "Those claiming that the effects of global warming from additional greenhouse gases can already be detected, I believe, are deluding themselves. It would take 5.5Wm-2 to produce a rise of 1K and an 11K rise (sometimes claimed) would need a massive 55W of additional energy for every square metre of the Earth's surface. There simply is not that amount of energy available still to be absorbed from the Earth's spectrum, most of which is largely saturated anyway owing to absorption by carbon dioxide and water vapour." Flood said, "Those who promote apocalyptic global warming claim that the sensitivity is much higher than 0.18K, some claiming 0.75K and even 1.5K.6 These claims are mainly based on a postulated magnifying effect of water vapour but, from a consideration of infrared absorption spectroscopy in relation to the spectrum emitted by a body at 288K, it is not clear how such large values can be achieved." Flood concluded by noting that the proponents of a climate catastrophe are out "to frighten the population." (LINK)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre- I think you can discount Parados' critique. He is not a serious researcher but an ideologue.

I think that I have read and reported more of the IPCC findings than anyone on this thread. A search of the postings will reveal this.

Note:

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Summary_for_Policymakers

The link above will show the following:

According to the IPCC, attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic forcings such as greenhouse gases can be established through the use of computer models. [IPCC 9, ISPM 6]

The ISPM summary states: "These attribution studies do not take into account ... potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes." This would appear to be an error, as even the ISPM itself states: "Studies have concentrated on what are believed to be the most important forcings: greenhouse gases, direct solar effects, some aerosols and volcanism."

The ISPM generalizes as follows: "Attribution studies to date do not take into account all known sources of possible influence on the climate." [ISPM 6.3c] This is true of most, but certainly not all, of the cited attribution studies, as even the ISPM admits that some studies do take into account forcings such as black carbon and land use. Moreover these studies "continue to detect a significant anthropogenic influence on 20th century temperature changes." [ISPM 6.3c; see also AR4 9.4.1.8 and Table S9.1]

*********************************************************************

Ican posts data about "solar activity" and is ignored by Parados who gives little data and a great deal of hot air.

Anyone reading the summary above would have to conclude that the issue is not settled.

I can and will. of course, wait patiently until this December when there will be a global meeting concerning climate changes. I can confidently predict that China and India, who consider themselves "developing countries" will do little to attack a problem which may truly not be significant. Then Barack Obama can stick his "global warming" agenda into one of his very large ears.

Everyone agrees that any kind of a cap and trade plan will cause a much higher unemployment rate along with rising energy costs for a populace which is already struggling with an 8.9% Unemployment rate courtesy of BO.

0 Replies

Anyone suffering from the delusion that China will resort to strangling its economy as Barack Obama wishes US industry to do in order to save us from the alleged climate change is invited to read the article below about China's continued and pervasive reliance on coal fired power plants.

*****************************************
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90884/6526884.html

Massive power plant set for Tangshan
+ - 09:02, November 04, 2008

China's largest coal-fired power plant starts operation

China Huadian Corp, one of the country's five leading power producers, said it will invest more than 50 billion yuan in an integrated energy complex in the Caofeidian industrial area in Tangshan, Hebei province.

Huadian signed a framework agreement with the local government on Oct 30 to that effect, the company said in a statement on its website.

According to the agreement, the energy complex will include a coal terminal at Caofeidian, a large-scale coal-fired power plant, equipment-manufacturing facilities and a coal chemical project.

Upon completion, the complex will have an annual output value of 20 to 30 billion yuan, with profits and tax of 3 to 4 billion yuan, according to the statement.

The new terminal will increase annual coal shipping capacity by 30 to 50 million tons.

With four 1,000 mW ultra supercritical units and other facilities, the energy complex will also establish an industrial chain that combines power generating, seawater desalinization, sulfur dioxide scrubbing and utilization of coal ashes, to boost an environmentally friendly economy.

The coal chemical project itself is expected to produce 4 million tons of methanol and its derivatives.

Caofeidian, located 80 km from downtown Tangshan, is an islet that has been turned into a booming economic development zone.

Huadian unveiled a similar energy base at Beihai in the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region in August, which comprises of coal docks, thermal power plants, coal chemical projects and wind power generating facilities.

Construction of the energy complex will help to relieve the pressure of coal transportation and boost the integration of coal and power generating.

Huadian Power International, the company's Hong Kong-listed arm, swung to a net loss of 874.09 million yuan in the third quarter from a profit of 354.8 million a year earlier, mainly due to higher coal prices.

For the first nine months of the year, the listed unit booked a net loss of 1.37 billion yuan, against a profit of 984.4 million yuan a year earlier.

Huadian's coal demand for power generation next year is expected to reach 160 million tons, up 23 percent from this year, Shanghai Securities News reported earlier.

The company has strengthened its exploitation of coal resources by investing in the coal mining industry since the beginning of 2008.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Yes I am serious. I had not seen any reference on this thread or anywhere else until I hunted down the information myself that the same folks who wrote the IPCC report did not write the Summary for Policy Makers. Did you mention that somewhere that I missed? I bet you didn't.

I just realized that you are not using the IPCC Summary for Policy makers Fox.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

You are using the Fraser ISPM (Independent Summary for Policy Makers) which is NOT written by the IPCC.
So, in other words you are still not reading the correct document. Rather you are reading a critique of the IPCC by a think tank.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute

Based on your comments Fox, I doubt you read the IPCC Summary for Policy makers. You might want to try reading the correct one.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I didn't say they were all your posts. Read the comments before the links. I only reposted what you ignored the first time I posted it.

0 Replies

@parados,

You might try reading what I actually posted. I did not recently post anything from the IPPC report or the Summary for Policymakers recently. I did post comments about them from the ISPN. But then you don't forget anything, so I must be mistaken that I did that, right?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

No, you posted information on the Summary for Policymakers 2 years ago at least twice. (I didn't search everything.) I realize that is a long time ago, but I would think you would remember what is obviously such an important document.

1 Reply

@parados,

Whatever Parados. It does not change anything that I've said since. Don't you have any friends? Any hobbies? Enjoy games? Anything to keep you busy besides nattering over the most insignificant minutiae on A2K?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I note that Herr Hinteler did not respond to High Seas' fine comment regarding the man generated CO2 contributing to just 0.117% of the total greenhouse effect. Maybe his meterology books are outdated ones from the forties.

1 Reply

Parados obviously has not read the IPCC Report and he certainly is not aware of the following:

It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
The skeptic argument...Much of the increase in temperatures this century occurred during the first half of the century, while the major increase in CO2 occurred in the last half. The CO2 increase comes after the temperature increase. In short, the increases in CO2 do not correlate to the increase in temperature.

What the science says...

A widespread misconception is that anthropogenic global warming has been dominant over the last century. In actuality, CO2 warming has only been dominant since the "modern global warming trend" began in the mid-70's.

To understand climate change, you need to factor in all the various forcings that influence global temperature. In the early 20th century, while CO2 levels were much smaller, solar activity was on the rise. Also, after a burst of volcanic activity in the late 18th century, there was a relative quiet volcanic period in the early 20th century. These were two dominant factors in the warming from 1900 to 1940.

However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975. Solar activity has been steady since the 50's. Volcanoes have been relatively frequent in the last few decades and if anything, have exerted a cooling effect that has somewhat masked the CO2 warming effect.

*************************************************************

It would appear that the increase in co2 does not materially affect global temperature. Parados, in his narrow minded approach, gives no credence at all to the possibility that, as A. Fred Singer has shown, Global Warming takes place every 1,500 years.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know