74
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 02:43 pm
@spendius,
Spendius,
More accurately, the consumer consumes products and services that produce toxic and noxious materials which pollute our air, our water, and our land.

The providers of those products and services that produce toxic and noxious materials which pollute our air, our water, and our land, also provide pollution while producing those products and services.

CO2 emissions are not a toxic and not a noxious material which pollutes our air, our water, and our land. CO2 nourishes our plants and trees. Human and animal CO2 emissions pollute nothing.

It has been alleged that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are the cause of climate change. It has been alleged by some folks that increases in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by our machines and their production are the cause of the trend of increasing AAGT (i.e., Average Annual Global Temperature) 1901 to 2001. These same folks have not yet alleged what is the cause of the trend of decreasing AAGT since 2001. Some folks say that recent trend is merely a temporary fluctuation in what they think will be a longer term increasing trend of AAGT.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 02:53 pm
@ican711nm,
Ican--The left will not look at the figures. They say that even though global temperature was down last year, it is just an abberation.

After posting many times, I have yet to have anyone of the hysterical Goristas explain to me why the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE went up by at least 0.4 degrees C from 1910 to 1940 and then stayed constant from 1940 to 1980.

If, as the Goristas say, Industrial and Auto Pollution produces the evil -Co2 which causes Global Warming, it is completely inexplicable that the Global Temperature would rise by 0.4 from 1910 to 1940 and stay flat from 1940 to 1980--Unless, of course, the left would wish to claim that there was more industrial output between 1910 to 1940---and, of course, that would be absurd.

Do you have a theory as to why the Global Temperature measured like that, Ican?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 05:41 pm
@ican711nm,
I don't care what people allege. I know what causes pollution. CO2 is a distraction from all the other shite.

It's really funny watching people try to assuage their guilt by sounding concerned about it all with this technical snow while causing it themselves at Olympic gold medal record speeds. The whole population of Chad can't compete with a busy restaurant.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 09:02 pm
@genoves,
genoves wrote:
Do you have a theory as to why the Global Temperature measured like that, Ican?

Yes!

FACTS AND REASONING FROM THOSE FACTS
It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, AoAAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, AoAAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
AoAAGT and AAGT increases and decreases,
and CAD increases are likely to be minor, if not
negligible, causes of increases of AoAAGT and AAGT.

WHERE
CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K = 287.06°K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
AoAAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
AAGT = CAGT + AoAAGT
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2

AoAAGT GRAPH
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

SI GRAPH
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg
Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

SI TABLE 1999 THRU 2008
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
Year..........SI
1999 1366.11
2000 1366.67
2001 1366.40
2002 1366.37
2003 1366.07
2004 1365.91
2005 1365.81
2006 1365.72
2007 1365.66
2008 1365.60 (extrapolated)


CAD GRAPH
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CAD Trend 1958-2008

:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 11:49 pm
And the beat (insanity?) goes on. . .

Quote:
from The Sunday TimesMay 24, 2009
Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.

Out will go kebabs, greenhouse tomatoes and alcohol. Instead, diners will be encouraged to consume more potatoes and seasonal vegetables, as well as pork and chicken, which generate fewer carbon emissions.

“Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions,” said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

Kennedy has stopped eating his favourite doner kebabs because they contain lamb.

A government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases found that producing 2.2lb of lamb released the equivalent of 37lb of carbon dioxide.

The problem is because sheep burp so much methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are only slightly better behaved. The production of 2.2lb of beef releases methane equivalent to 35lb of CO2 Tomatoes, most of which are grown in heated glasshouses, are the most “carbon-intensive” vegetable, each 2.2lb generating more than 20lb of CO2 Potatoes, in contrast, release only about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lb of food. The figures are similar for most other native fruit and vegetables.

“We are not saying that everyone should become vegetarian or give up drinking but moving towards less carbon intensive foods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health,” said Kennedy.

The climate committee is analysing emissions from farming and will suggest measures to reduce them. However, it has concluded that people will have to change their habits.

Alcoholic drinks are another significant contributory factor, with the growing and processing of crops such as hops and malt into beer and whisky helping to generate 1.5% of the nation’s greenhouse gases.

The Carbon Trust, a government-funded firm, is working with food and drink companies to calculate the “carbon footprints” of products - sometimes with surprising results.

Coca-Cola, for example, generates only about half the greenhouse gas emissions of Innocent’s “smoothies”. Cadbury’s chocolate generates about 4½lb for every 2.2lb eaten - less than half that from CO2 of the same weight of chicken.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6350237.ece
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:20 am
Ic an--Thank you for your charts--I note your evidence that Solar Irradiance is the cause of any warming( I am sure that you know that last year's global temperature fell).

I gathered some evidence and comments concerning solar irradiance. Note--

quote

Increased solar activity? Absolutely and at least half of Earth's estimated mean temperature increment since the Nineteenth Century can be attributed to increased solar irradiance, probably more than four-fifths is from that source although we are still trying to sort out climate and forcings, something which will likely require decades yet. Nonetheless, the best available thermometric temperature records list Earth's global mean temperature as variance from a commencing benchmark average, usually 1951-1980 or 1961-90, and show -0.3 °C c1880 or 1870, with 0.0 °C variance from this average occurring c1940 and with 2000 listed as +0.3 °C. In other words, Earth warmed 0.3 °C from origin of record to benchmark average by 1940, then warmed another 0.3 °C subsequently. Since the vast majority of the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere occurred following the Second World War and this is concurrent with only half the apparent temperature increase, the assumption is that this increase was driven by some other cause, in this case the increase in solar irradiance. There is no reason to believe all other temperature varying forces ceased to exist when carbon dioxide began accumulating, hence the "at least half" attribution above.

end of quote

and from

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:29 am
Science 14 November 1997:
Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266
DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5341.1257
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Research Articles

A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
Gerard Bond, * William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges


we find:

quote:

"It really looks like the sun has mattered to climate...the Bond et. al. data are sufficiently convincing that solar variability is now the leading hypothesis in explaining the roughly 1,500 year oscillation of the climate seen since the last ice age, including the little Ice Age of the seventeenth century"
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:32 am
Ican-- I thank you for your persistence and scholarship. I am happy that you do not allow the charlatans like Parados to get away with their exaggerations.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:33 am
Ican--The left will not look at the figures. They say that even though global temperature was down last year, it is just an abberation.

After posting many times, I have yet to have anyone of the hysterical Goristas explain to me why the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE went up by at least 0.4 degrees C from 1910 to 1940 and then stayed constant from 1940 to 1980.

If, as the Goristas say, Industrial and Auto Pollution produces the evil -Co2 which causes Global Warming, it is completely inexplicable that the Global Temperature would rise by 0.4 from 1910 to 1940 and stay flat from 1940 to 1980--Unless, of course, the left would wish to claim that there was more industrial output between 1910 to 1940---and, of course, that would be absurd.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 07:09 am
This has been said before on this thread. Let me repeat it for the idiots that can't remember.

Quote:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

http://pontotriplo.org/quickpicks/2009/04/sulfate_aerosols_global_cooling.html

Warming was masked by an increase in aerosols in the 40s, 50s and 60s. The reduction of those man made particles has allowed the warming to return.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 09:06 am
@parados,
But what about this, Parados?

"At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon - small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels - absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.’"

Classic case of taking a result and looking for an explanation to fulfull your preconcieved political notions.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 09:56 am
@parados,
That's the real problem in China where they burn dirty coal for most of their energy. They are killing their own people by the growth of their economy.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 11:10 am
Genoves says:

"After posting many times, I have yet to have anyone of the hysterical Goristas explain to me why the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE went up by at least 0.4 degrees C from 1910 to 1940 and then stayed constant from 1940 to 1980."

Of course "hysterical Goristas" haven't told you anything, since they don't exist, but are a fictional creation as a strawman opponent by the rabid denialists.

However you have been told repeatedly by those familiar with the science that supports global warming that it was due to anthropogenic aerosols, as evidenced, among other things, by observed dimming of the levels of solar brightness because of known emissions and their presence in the atmosphere.

A recent take onthis:
"CO2 is not the only factor controlling global temperatures. The sun is the major driver of climate but solar levels been steady for the past 50 years. Another significant factor is aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air) that have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight (this is called global dimming). The more aerosols in the atmosphere, the less sunlight reaches the Earth's surface.

Surface measurements of solar radiation found a global trend of dimming from 1960 which reversed around 1985. From that point, there has been a general trend of brightening. As solar output has been steady over this period, this is consistent with measurements of aerosol levels that have fallen since the early 80's. Note - this doesn't explain current warming but does explain why CO2 warming has been masked from 1950 to 1980.

Satellite measurements of solar radiation at the Earth's surface has detected a long term increase in surface brightness from 1983 to 2001. Combined with the fact that solar levels have been level since the 50's, this indicates aerosol levels have been falling"
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm

As we've previously told you, you might also check out the IPCC's TAR

You've been given the explanation since you were massagato back on abuzz, and at least once when you were somebody, probably BersnardR, here on a2k. And you don't remember any of it? So sorry to hear you're suffering from early onset Alzheimer's

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 11:28 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

But what about this, Parados?

"At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon - small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels - absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.’"


Yeah? and? Black carbon emissions create warming. Sulfates create cooling. I am aware of that. We reduced sulfates production in the US and Europe while not reducing CO2 production. This means when it comes to the US and Europe the sulfates were no longer cooling compared to the warming caused by CO2 and black carbon emissions.

It certainly points to man made global warming if black carbon emissions are warming the atmosphere, doesn't it okie? We need to reduce our emissions. That would be what I have been arguing. What are you arguing okie?


Quote:
Classic case of taking a result and looking for an explanation to fulfull your preconcieved political notions.

Yes, your statement about black carbon emissions could be a good example of taking something and trying to make it fulfill your preconceived notions.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 03:42 pm
@parados,
Parados, I would venture to bet that if you took every variable that scientists now think affect climate, and made them constant, the climate would still vary or change, so I just think that you are trying to correlate a fraction of a degree change to a variable or set of variables when the science is not that exact. There is something in math or science that is called "degree of accuracy."

Its somewhat akin to charging nine tenths of a penny for a gallon of gasoline, when the flowmeters are lucky to get within a couple of pennies of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. The pricing is not consistent with the measurement capability.

Same thing with climate. You are drawing conclusions that simply cannot be ascertained to that fine of a number, given the capabilities and limitations of measurement and calculation of all of the effects on a world basis, as they act and interact.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 04:27 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Its somewhat akin to charging nine tenths of a penny for a gallon of gasoline, when the flowmeters are lucky to get within a couple of pennies of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. The pricing is not consistent with the measurement capability.

So, because the flow meter isn't accurate, in your opinion, in its measurement that must mean the price of gas never goes up or down? An interesting argument from you okie. One I doubt anyone would agree with.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 05:32 pm
And the beat goes on. . . .

Yesterday it was burping lambs that were killing the planet.

Today they want us to all paint our roofs white.

(Question from the admittedly non-scientist of the group: Wouldn't a white roof also reflect sunlight in the winter thus increasing the need for more energy to supply heat? Or would this be negligible? Why?)

Quote:
Obama's green guru calls for white roofs
President Obama's energy adviser has suggested all the world's roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:33PM BST 27 May 2009

Professor Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, said the unusual proposal would mean homes in hot countries would save energy and money on air conditioning by deflecting the sun's rays.

More pale surfaces could also slow global warming by reflecting heat into space rather than allowing it to be absorbed by dark surfaces where it is trapped by greenhouse gases and increases temperatures.

MORE HERE:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 05:43 pm
But bravo for Sarkozy. What we need are a lot more heads of state who are willing for all science to be considered and for all points of view to be expressed rather than just the current politically correct ones. Such may in fact arrive at the same conclusions as before, but at least people like me would feel better with assurance that we're not having ideology and opportunism crammed down our throat rather than conviction based on solid science.

Quote:
Sarkozy in climate row over reshuffle
By Ben Hall in Paris
Published: May 27 2009

President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire to appoint an outspoken climate-change sceptic to a new French super-ministry of industry and innovation has drawn strong protests from party colleagues and environmentalists.

Claude Allègre argues that global warming is not necessarily caused by human activity. Putting him in charge of scientific research would be tantamount to "giving the finger to scientists", said Nicolas Hulot, France's best-known environmental activist.

Mr Sarkozy wants to bring Mr Allègre, 72, a freethinking, former socialist education minister, into the government in a reshuffle after next month's European parliamentary elections. The president appears to reckon that appointing someone from outside his own centre-right party will help to counter perceptions that he is a polarising, sectarian leader who decides everything himself. Several portfolios are already held by figures from the left and centre.

Alain Juppé, the former centre-right prime minister, said the appointment would send a "terribly bad signal" ahead of international negotiations to secure a successor to the Kyoto treaty on cuts to carbon emissions.

One critic said that associating Mr Allègre with the government's ambitious environmental policy was like putting "organic farming alongside Chernobyl".

Mr Sarkozy is said to value Mr Allègre's experience, his plain speaking and his convictions on the need to free up the economy and shake up the public sector - particularly the university research establishment.

The president's allies rode to Mr Allègre's defence yesterday. Xavier Bertrand, the general secretary of the ruling UMP party, paid tribute to his qualities as a "reformer", saying Mr Allègre had "an interesting profile in French political life".

Mr Allègre hit back at his critics and their "lies and distortions" about his record and beliefs. The climate was certainly changing, he said, but not all the reasons for it were known. "As a scientist and citizen, I, unlike others, do not want environmentalism to accentuate the crisis or make the least well-off suffer more," he said.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2b172ba-4a54-11de-8e7e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 06:51 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
And the beat goes on. . . .

Yesterday it was burping lambs that were killing the planet.

Today they want us to all paint our roofs white.



So did the Bush administration. You probably think the idea is ridiculous because it comes from Obama's energy adviser and you probably found the article via Drudge Report, but both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the extension authorized by President Bush in October 2008 contained incentives in the form or tax rebates for the installation of a roof with an initial solar reflectance of at least 0.65. Same idea, really.

This is from an article in the New Scientist in 2005:

Quote:
The Earth has an albedo of 0.29, meaning that it reflects 29 per cent of the sunlight that falls upon it. With an albedo of 0.1, towns absorb more sunlight than the global average. Painting all roofs white could nudge the Earth's albedo from 0.29 towards 0.30. According to a very simple "zero-dimensional" model of the Earth, this would lead to a drop in global temperature of up to 1 °C, almost exactly cancelling out the global warming that has taken place since the start of the industrial revolution.


This is from an article from the Christian Science Monitor in 2008:

Quote:
It has long been known that a white roof makes a dwelling cooler. That saves energy and cuts carbon emissions. But until Akbari, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, picked up a pencil to do the calculations, few realized the major climate effect that millions of white rooftops could have by reflecting sunlight back into space.

It turns out that a 1,000 square foot area of rooftop painted white has about the same one-time impact on global warming as cutting 10 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, he and his colleagues write in a new study soon to be published in the journal “Climatic Change.”

As sunlight pours down into Earth’s atmosphere, some of the energy is filtered out or bounces off clouds. About half the energy shines through as visible light and some of that hits the tops of houses. If a roof is white, most sunlight reflects back into space and doesn’t heat the earth. But if a roof is a dark color, the sunlight converts to heat rather than bouncing off as light. That thermal energy then radiates off the roof back toward space, where it is trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, and then absorbed by this greenhouse gas. As a result, the world’s thermometer reads just a little higher than it did before.

If the estimated 360,000 square miles (less than 1 percent of the world’s land surface) covered by urban rooftops and pavement were a white or light color, enough sunlight would be reflected back into space to delay climate change by about 11 years, the study shows.

Put another way, boosting how much urban rooftops reflect, called albedo (al-BEE-doh) in scientific terms, would be a one-time carbon-offset equivalent to preventing 44 billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, Akbari says. It’s about the same as taking all the earth’s automobiles off the road for 11 years, the study’s authors say.


Comes with this graphic:

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/wp-content/assets/6/425/graphic0.jpg
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 09:30 pm
Same principle as a white car in Arizona. Go to AZ, look at how many light colored cars there are,and then compare it with, for example, MA. Lots more white cars there, lots darker cars here, where we can use a warmer car nine months of the year.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 11:00:06