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

@parados,

"The only one being hysterical seems to be the person that wrote your list Ionus. It raises questions about your ability to think rationally for posting it here."
Thanks for making me smile. If you cant win attack the person. That was my point 8. Would you like me to go away because you are afraid ?

7. - "No one has said we all die unless we believe. That is a made up argument."
I suggest you read what other global warming believers have said. One expert declared the earths oceans would rise by 60m. Oh, really ? The highest the oceans have been is 5m higher, which is today's worst case scenario. They have been 60m lower. Which would damage the worlds reefs more ? Low tide 5m higher, or high tide 60m lower. The temperature will rise by more than 5degrees C - so what ? It has been that temperature before. Given the choice of global warming or an Ice Age I will take warming. What will a km high of ice over the land masses of North America and Europe do ?

11. "Which specific time period are you talking about? There have not been huge amounts of greenhouse gases released when humans lived. The earth had more CO2 millions of years before humans came on the scene but not after they arrived."
I am not sure of your point. Are you saying greenhouse gases can only have an effect if humans are here??? Why didnt we (being animal life ) die out before when there was far more greenhouse gases ?

12 -" water vapor, sulphur, chloride and methane are not ignored. They are included in the science. Claiming they aren't included sounds rather hysterical on your part."
Sulphur, chloride and methane are not included in reports presented to the people through the mass media because they can cool. Why confuse people with facts. It is better to lie to them. They also make the 'science' an educated guess.

13. "One MEGA volcano can't produce many times more greenhouse gases than man has. Your statement is complete nonsense. The most SO2 ever put out by a single volcano since 1979 is about 15,000 kts."
You specify since 1979. Again this is typical of the global warming argument. Give people who talk about the worst flood in 20 years a narrow time frame. After all, life is short. Since we had a climate, we only have direct data on weather for the last 300 years and most of that is due to British ship logs. With ocean floor and ice core samples we still only have 1/10,000th of the earths history in interpreted data. If I gave you any other linear data problem and asked you to make a prediction with only 1/10,000 of the information and all of that at one end you would laugh. But call it global warming and everyone has a guess. Mega volcanos like Toba, Yellowstone, the Decan Traps, Siberia - these all produced enormous amounts of greenhouse gases and the world is still here. In fact all these greenhouse gas events cooled the planet.

"Volcanoes can't begin to match the output of CO2 by man. Quote: Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. ...Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."
Again, it seems that man must be here for greenhouse gasses to work. I never said currently active volcanos. You made that up. As you so eloquently put it " That is a made up argument" and "It raises questions about your ability to think rationally for posting it here."

What ever happened to the 1980's, when scientists argued we were going into an Ice Age ? Did that become unfashionable ?

The balance of probability is that the earth will get warmer. Politics has jumped on this with some bad science that would better be labeled a guess. Some believe in global warming with the ferocity of religious zeal. It is necessary to change our ways, but dont lie to people. It is a case of the scientists who cried wolf. You will never be believed again. As for the politics involved, if I wanted a dictatorship I would have voted for one.

1 Reply

The real costs of adaptation are likely to be 2-3 times greater than estimates made by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), say Professor Martin Parry and colleagues in a new reviewed study published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London.
The study adds that costs will be even more when the full range of climate impacts on human activities is considered.

Annual costs of climate change will be £190bn

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Thanks for making me smile. If you cant win attack the person. That was my point 8. Would you like me to go away because you are afraid ?

Why did you have numbers to respond to if I only attacked the person? Could you explain your statement I bolded and why it isn't an attack on the person you are speaking to?

7. The last time I checked ALL humans didn't live less than 60m above sea level. I know I live more than 60m above sea level so the sea rise won't kill everyone.

Quote:

What will a km high of ice over the land masses of North America and Europe do ?

It won't kill everyone just like a sea level rise of 60 m wouldn't kill everyone.
You have provided nothing to support the claim that anyone has said global warming will kill "EVERYONE."
Point 7. Still hysterical

11. My point is the statement is FALSE in its basis. Read the original. Changing the statement doesn't defend it. It means you agree that it is not defensible.
Point 11. Still hysterical

12. Oh.. so then they ARE included in the science.
Let's look at YOUR statement

Quote:

I love hysterics under the heading of science.

It seems your statement wasn't about the science if you are now arguing it is the media.
Point 12 Still hysterical if you are talking about the science which is what YOU claimed you were doing.
And methane is a warming gas. Like I said. .hysterical
13.
I specified after 1979 because it was the data I found quickly. I fully expected you to take the route and point out that I only used that data but I have a response for that. Please point out the year in recorded human history when we had volcanic activity 100 times what has been seen since 1979. (actually it would need to be 10,000 times to meet the statement compared to ALL of human output.) The La Garita Caldera is from50 million years ago. I doubt it even produced many times the gases of humans and that would have been over a couple of million years. The deposits of La Garita Caldera were only 5000 times that of Mt St Helen's. Not quite the 10,000 figure and certainly not "many times" what man has produced so far.
13 --- still hysterical because it tells lies and uses earth's history that is very likely to NOT repeat.

Quote:

What ever happened to the 1980's, when scientists argued we were going into an Ice Age ? Did that become unfashionable ?

LOL.. not that tired old argument again.. Please point to the scientific articles that claim we are going into an ice age. I would love to read them. No one has EVER provided such when they bring up this crap.

1 Reply

@parados,

Yes, I have read the IPCC report.

Where in the IPCC report are the following questions answered AND the evidence to support these answers provided?

The percentages of the less than one degree Celsius temperature increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 year caused by each of the following are:
CO2 = X%;
H2O = Y%;
SI = Z%.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Have you read the IPCC report? Or are you talking out of ignorance?

As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

1 Reply

the farmers of greenland ( the "green land " ) are quite happy about the current warming trend - they can grow some fine vegetables again .

however , the poor sled-dogs/huskies are no longer wanted .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8167211.stm

from the BBC report :

Quote:

Greenland comes in from the cold

As world leaders grapple with the perils of climate change, there are parts of the globe where warmer temperatures are welcomed. Hardtalk presenter Stephen Sackur has just returned from Greenland where he found plenty of people eyeing opportunities amid the melting glaciers .
...
But never mind this traditional, and sublime, Greenlandic fare, I really want to tell you about my side order of leeks. Without wishing to sound immodest I know a thing or two about vegetables - it comes from being the son of a Lincolnshire farmer - and I can tell you the Rowing Club in Kangerlussuaq has few peers when it comes to fresh, home-grown vegetables.

That last phrase bears repetition, home-grown vegetables, in Kangerlussuaq, north of the Arctic Circle where the summer sun never sets and the winter darkness lasts for half a year.

Arctic thaw

I summoned restaurateur Kim Ernst from his kitchen. "You must have grown these fine vegetables in a glass house," I said with a sceptical frown.

"Not at all", he replied, "they're all from my garden. If you don't believe me come and see." So I did, and he was right. Greenland, is finally showing signs of living up to its name.

The last decade has brought with it markedly higher summer temperatures in the arctic North.

In southern Greenland farmers have planted fields of potatoes as the growing season has lengthened.

Plans are afoot to establish forests of Siberian Larch on this windswept and treeless island.

For Greenlanders, all 56,000 of them, the long-term prospect of being able to "grow their own", from tomatoes to timber, is little short of intoxicating.
...
Redundant huskies

"I used to have 25 dogs," one fisherman told me. "Now I have nine."

"What did you do with the others?" I asked. "The dog catcher came round," he replied with cold detachment. "With a gun."

The giant glacier in Illulisat's fjord has retreated more than 10 miles in the last decade.
...
"We understand that this is a global issue," Greenland's softly-spoken premier Kuupik Kleist told me in the capital Nuuk, "but we see opportunities as well as challenges. I want a Greenland that is open to those opportunities."

seems that "green" land is the place that's going to benefit from warming temperatures .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we also know that some farming was done by the norse when they came to greenland about the year 1,000 :

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

Quote:

Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists 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
313
Fifteen scientists in the Netherlands signed an open letter declaring "Man is not responsible for global warming" in 2007. "The warming is mainly natural causes," read the January 11, 2007 open letter signed by the 15 scientists in De Volkskrant, Holland. "Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. True - but correlation is never proof of causation. Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th century, from 1940 to 1975 -- even while CO2 was increasing rapidly," the 15 scientists explained. "There are nearly two dozen large models -- each giving a different result, depending on the assumptions fed into the computer," the letter continued. "In any case, model results are never evidence; only actual observations and data count," they added. "The current warming may well be part of the natural 1500-year cycle that has been measured in ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc., going back nearly a million years," the scientists concluded. The scientists who signed the open letter included: Peter Bloemers, professor of biochemistry, University of Nijmegen: Adriaan Broere, an engineer and geophysicist, worked in satellite technology; Bas van Geel, paleo-ecology professor, University of Amsterdam; Hub Jongen, electrical engineer; Rob Kouffeld, professor of energy, TU Delft; Rob Melon, professor of molecular recognition, Utrecht University; Jan Mulderink, a chemical engineer, former research director AKZO Arnhem, former chairman for the Foundation of Sustainable Chemical Technology in Wageningen; Harry Priem, . professor of planetary and isotope geology, former director ZWO / NWO Institute for Isotope - Geophysical Research, a former chairman Royal Dutch Geological organization; Henk Schalke, former chairman of the management team IUGS-UNESCO; Olaf Schuiling, Geochemistry professor, University of Utrecht; Dick Thoenes, em. professor chemical process engineering TU Eindhoven, a former chairman Royal Dutch Chemical Society; and Jan Pieter van Wolfswinkel, a retired mechanical engineering professor, TU Delft. (LINK)

0 Replies

@parados,

I had the numbers in the hope you would follow them. I said : "Would you like me to go away because you are afraid ?" You said you dont understand this question but you feel it is an attack on you ? Perhaps you will feel better after a good lie down.

7. "The last time I checked ALL humans didn't live less than 60m above sea level. I know I live more than 60m above sea level so the sea rise won't kill everyone." When was the last time you checked ? Do you have any references ? That was a reference in itself to your devotion to references. You should read the assumptions in these Global Warming reports, and how they estimate not measure the data. Relying heavily on the latest reports as being unquestionable facts shows a mind educated beyond its intelligence. I assume this is not the case with you because you do know that reports can be wrong.
You are missing the point by leaning heavily on scientific articles. Many false statements can be found in scientific articles. Let's not mention out of date ones. Stephen Hawking wrote many that are now wrong. Einstein had quantum physics wrong. A large number of people increasingly dont believe scientists because of the assumptions and degree of interpretation is never released to the public, it has to dug out by disbelievers. Scientific facts on Global Warming dont exist. It has been replaced by a belief that borders on religious fanaticism.

Venus has been sited as the earths end through Global Warming. If you dont think that will kill everyone, I think we will have to stay in disagreement.
You dont understand the consequences of an Ice Age so I will give you a quick idea, but you will have to do some research yourself. A km of ice over North America and Europe means at current populations aproximately at least a billion people have to move south. who is going to pay for this and where will they go ? You see ? These nations have nuclear weapons. You see ? I think the average reader gets it by now, but if you dont I will be happy to explain it more at your request.

11. You didnt answer my questions so perhaps you would be polite this time and aswer them: " Are you saying greenhouse gases can only have an effect if humans are here??? Why didnt we (being animal life ) die out before when there was far more greenhouse gases ?" You say I agree it is indefensible - perhaps it would be best if I said what I agreed to, if only for the purpose of accuracy- I know how much you like to use your imagination but it is rather rude.

12. The original to aid your memory: "Focus on carbon dioxide, the least provable of greenhouse gases and ignore the most obvious, water vapour which is given off by trees. Dont even mention the middle of the road gases based on sulphur, and chloride and methane because they are provable as producing global cooling, as they do in most volcanic events." Then you said: -" water vapor, sulphur, chloride and methane are not ignored. They are included in the science. Claiming they aren't included sounds rather hysterical on your part." Show me where I said they are not included in the science ? You seem to be ignoring the obvious to shore up your argument.
Scientists do not release statements on the ambiguoity of these gases, because it would confuse people. It is easier to lie then to tell an "Inconvenient Truth".
Thanks for putting "YOU" in capitals. I was wondering if you meant me.

Again, seeing you are having trouble remembering the original :13. Ignore earths volcanic past. One mega volcano can produce many times more greenhouse gases than man has so far.
Somehow you have twisted this to only mean during mankind's existence. Perhaps if you carefully read the original a couple of times you will understand. Let me know if you dont and I will explain more.

Your inability to read what I wrote but to use your imagination instead causes me to ask are you a native english speaker ? It would explain all your errors and twists to simply put ideas.

"No one has ever provided such [references] when they bring up this crap"...this statement of yours, whilst clearly showing the emotional strain you are under when forced to use logic, puts you in a position of knowing everything that was ever written. You probably dont.
Clearly you have some paranoi or phobia towards the word hysterical. I used it once and you then applied it 6 times to me. If you only had of used it 7 times, then you would have won your argument in a very scientific way. I have used it twice to see if you agree with me. Please let me know.

You have the afrontery to say it tells lies when clearly you mean me. If you can not argue without becoming hysterical, then I shall ask for you to be removed from this forum. Unless of course, you can prove I am lying.

1 Reply

Global Warming Fraud Smoking Gun! EPA Suppresses Climate Report Damaging To Cap and Trade Bill

0 Replies

Yeah,yeah. old news, or rather old Fox bloviating. This was months ago. The guy did it on his own, it wasn't "an EPA study", it was his own free-lance stuff, and it was basically just a rehash of the same old denialist drivel. Inhofe is dead on arrival in the Senate, not the bill. And the earth isn't on a cooling trend. Take a look at NOAA climate analyses for the last several months, the temps are going back up, now that last winter's la Nina is over. Just like we all told you.

0 Replies

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the real scientists say about Carlin's supposed smoking gun. Carlin by the way is an economist. With their sterling performances over the last year and a half of crashing economy worldwide, does anybody take seriously anything economists say anymore?

From RealClimate:

"Bubkes
Filed under: Climate ScienceGreenhouse gases" gavin @ 26 June 2009 - ()
Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI (”CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!“), are all a-twitter over an apparently “suppressed” document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft of this “suppressed” document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science. Let’s take a look…

First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem " perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? " but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science " a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken’s rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC " which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail…."

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Fig 2.1 in the FAQs answers your question.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

For the actual science read chapter 2 in the full report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Here is a copy of fig 2.1

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/images/figure-spm-2-p4.jpg

1 Reply

@Adanac,

As of Dec 20, 2007, as it is today, Inhofe's list is still a load of crap. To call them all "prominent scientists" is complete nonsense since many of them have never published a scientific paper. I don't know of too many "prominent" scientists that do NO scientific research, do you?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

I am not missing the point at all since you are the one that said this..

Quote:

7. Tell people we are all going to die unless they believe.

Your claims about the science are completely false. There is no science that says we are all going to die because of global warming.

Quote:

Venus has been sited as the earths end through Global Warming.

And who claimed that? No one I know has ever done that. No matter what humans do we can't create the Venusian atmosphere on earth. I understand the consequences of an ice age, but even an ice age won't kill all humans.

How quickly do you think a km of ice will appear during an ice age? Your arguments about the cost of moving and the nuclear weapons shows you don't know a thing about it. Ice ages don't occur within a decade or even a single century. It takes time to build up that ice. The sun doesn't provide enough energy over the course of a decade to evaporate the water needed to create a km of ice over North America. Even if the US got an average of 20 inches of precipitation per year and it all turned to ice it would take over 2000 years to create a km of ice.

Perhaps you should explain it more. You don't seem to be doing a good job of it now.

11. I didn't say they only have an effect if humans are there. The statement #11 says this.

Quote:

11. Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases that have been released in the past because people may ask why didnt we die then when the planet was warmer anyway.

If you don't want to discuss what was actually said then WHY did you say it in the first place? It's a little disingenuous to turn the "we" into "animal life" don't you think? No one thinks of "we" as being all life. The we refers to "people". No other way to interpret the statement as it is written. I don't have to use my imagination to make that connection. You are the one being imaginative by trying to make "we" mean animal life in general.

12. LOL.. OK.. first of all. "water vapor given off by trees" shows a complete ignorance of how water gets into the atmosphere. The amount that comes from trees is probably about equal to the amount that humans spew from auto tail pipes. Water vapor mainly comes from evaporation of water from the ocean, lakes and other bodies of water on the surface. It also comes from water in the ground evaporating. Try putting a pile of mud on your door step and see what happens to it. You will notice it dries out. Where does the water go?
Second of all. Sulfur and chloride cool but methane warms so the statement has a falsehood in it.

Quote:

Show me where I said they are not included in the science ? You seem to be ignoring the obvious to shore up your argument.

You clearly said it by posting this statement.

Quote:

Dont even mention the middle of the road gases based on sulphur, and chloride and methane

in conjunction with this statement by you

Quote:

I love hysterics under the heading of science.

Clearly you put the statement under the heading science when you made your statement preceding the one you now want to claim you never said was science.

Quote:

I love hysterics under the heading of science. Here is how to have a conspiracy on Global Warming:

For a native speaker, it is assumed that the list of numbered items that follow the colon would be directly related to the sentences that preceded it. Unless you are going to argue that your statement about the heading of science is a non sequitor it would be logical for any native English speaker to assume that the list that follows should be under the "heading of science" in your viewpoint.

Quote:

f you can not argue without becoming hysterical, then I shall ask for you to be removed from this forum. Unless of course, you can prove I am lying.

That is funny. You will ask me to be removed from the forum? Wouldn't want to have anyone disagree with you, would you Ionus. Best to just ask to have them removed so you can make false statements without them being questioned.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, I asked:

Quote:

Where in the IPCC report are the following questions answered AND the evidence to support these answers provided?

The percentages of the less than one degree Celsius temperature increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 year caused by each of the following are:
CO2 = X%;
H2O = Y%;
SI = Z%.

In other words, I asked what are the values of X, Y, and Z?

I can find nothing in the contents of your post, or the contents of what you referenced, that answers my question, or even gives me a way to answer my question, myself..

parados wrote:

Fig 2.1 in the FAQs answers your question.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

For the actual science read chapter 2 in the full report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

If none of the IPCC members know the answer to my question, and you do not know the answer, then it is obvious that IPCC and you--like me--are ignorant of the relative significance of human caused releases of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to other causes of the century average global temperature increase of less than one degree Celsius .

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I can find nothing in the contents of your post, or the contents of what you referenced, that answers my question, or even gives me a way to answer my question, myself..

You can find nothing? Then you haven't looked my friend

The information is there for all to see.

What part of the lovely graph do you not understand?
Can't you do the math yourself?

The data is found in table 2.12 on page 204.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Which parts don't you understand?

1 Reply

@parados,

ican711nm" wrote:

Where in the IPCC report are the following questions answered AND the evidence to support these answers provided?

The percentages of the less than one degree Celsius temperature increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 year caused by each of the following are:
CO2 = X%;
H2O = Y%;
SI = Z%.

In other words, I asked what are the values of X, Y, and Z?

I can find nothing in the contents of your post, or the contents of what you referenced, that answers my question, or even gives me a way to answer my question, myself.

parados wrote:

Fig 2.1 in the FAQs answers your question.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

For the actual science read chapter 2 in the full report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

ican711nm wrote:

If none of the IPCC members know the answer to my question, and you do not know the answer, then it is obvious that IPCC and you--like me--are ignorant of the relative significance of human caused releases of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to other causes of the century average global temperature increase of less than one degree Celsius .

parados wrote:

You can find nothing? Then you haven't looked my friend

The information is there for all to see.

What part of the lovely graph do you not understand?
Can't you do the math yourself?

The data is found in table 2.12 on page 204.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Which parts don't you understand?

I do not understand how the 6 displays in Figure 2.12 on page 204 contribute anything to the answers of my questions. These displays present different diagrams of the Radiative Forcing over the earth for different KINDS of Changes in Atmospheric constitutents over a six year period.

How can I use that information to determine the relative influence of atmospheric CO2, atmospheric H2O, and SI on the less than one degree Celsius global TEMPERATURE trend over the last 100 years? I cannot even deduce that information for the global temperature trend over the period 2001 thru 2006.

You apparently think you can! Ok, so do it! Or, show me how!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

CORRECTION

So do it! AND show me how!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

From 1750 to 2005

Total increase in W/m^2 .. 1.72
increase from CO2 1.66
increase from SI .12
increase from water vapor .07

CO2 = 96.5%
SI = 7%
water vapor = 4%

Since temperature is affected by the increase in energy, the temperature increase is the same as the energy increase in percentages.

If you want the 100 years you are demanding, you will have to follow the sources and look at the data sets in the papers referenced. It's called reading, something I can't help you with ican. You can either do it yourself or whine about how you can't do it. I could care less since you obviously aren't really interested in seeing what the science really is.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

From 1750 to 2005

Total increase in W/m^2 = 1.72
increase from CO2 = 1.66
increase from SI = .12
increase from water vapor = .07

CO2 = 96.5%
SI = 7%
water vapor = 4%

I asked for what percentage of the one degree Celsius increase in the last 100 years, were caused by, respectively, CO2, H2O, and SI increases. For this post, I'll assume that these percentages I asked for are directly proportional to the percentage increase in W/^2m for each.

I THINK THE IPCC REPORTED INCREASES IN RADIATIVE FORCING ARE FALSE:
The IPCC alleges that 1750 to 2005, SI increased only 0.12W/m^2. From the sources below, that increase was actually more than 1.2 W/m^2, or more than ten times as much.

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
Solar Irradiance 1985 to 2007

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

Solar Irradiance = SI in W/m^2:

2005 = 1365.81
1999 = 1366.39
Average 1996-2002= 1366.1
Increase from 1901-1907 average = 1.35

1907 = 1365.1
1901 = 1364.4
Average 1901-1907 = 1364.75
Increase from 1756-1762 average = 0.0

1762 = 1365.0
1756 = 1364.5
Average 1756-1762 = 1364.75

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know