71
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 08:40 pm
@parados,
Parados, the IPCC did not actually answer the question: "what relative proportion of climate change (which we already know is happening), is a result of human activity versus natural events. That's a much harder question to answer, and nobody has answered it yet ."

If you disagree, parados, then provide the specific IPCC reference that supports your disagreement.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:30 pm
@ican711nm,
Here is a pretty picture for you ican from the IPCC report

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-2-1-figure-2.jpeg

It has been posted before.

The majority of the warming is the result of human activities according to the IPCC report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 07:57 am
@parados,
If you saw more than a pretty picture, you would notice that they have left out dust. This was because no one knew how to allow for it. It means all their moddelling is wrong, apart from the faulty data they used.

This is the same report that states higher temperatures mean more powerful storms. Now they are claiming they mean winter storms, which put simply is a load of rubbish. They were referring to summer storms, super cells and cyclones (Tai-fun, Hurricane).

The current argument from Global Warming Thuggees is that even if it gets colder it is getting hotter.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 09:08 am
@Ionus,
Well Ionus, since the graph is of CHANGES in forcing, why don't you provide your evidence that the amount of dust has changed from 1750 to today. I would love to see your evidence. So.. provide us with it.

Do you feel because you have been sent into this world half made up that it allows you to make up plots, libels and dreams?

Colder? Do you know what the average temperature in DC is in Feb? Why don't you try to make an argument about how snow doesn't normally occur when the temperature is 27 degrees F.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 10:35 am
Comes under the heading of aerosols, ionus. It's included.
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 12:04 pm
@MontereyJack,
No it's not, Jack!You and others here may wish to consult NASA satellite data - it's public. As to their change over the years (asked by Parados) even the most elementary knowledge of population statistics for Africa and Latin America will show the overwhelming importance of "dust", other places known as " fine-mode aerosol optical depth". Read this carefully:
Quote:
Biomass burning is a major source of pollution in the tropical Southern Hemisphere, and fine mode carbonaceous particles are produced by the same combustion processes that emit carbon monoxide (CO). In this paper we examine these emissions with data from the Terra satellite, CO profiles from the Measurement of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) instrument, and fine-mode aerosol optical depth (AOD) from the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The satellite measurements are used in conjunction with calculations from the MOZART chemical transport model to examine the 2003 Southern Hemisphere burning season with particular emphasis on the months of peak fire activity in September and October. Pollutant emissions follow the occurrence of dry season fires, and the temporal variation and spatial distributions of MOPITT CO and MODIS AOD are similar. We examine the outflow from Africa and South America with emphasis on the impact of these emissions on clean remote regions. We present comparisons of MOPITT observations and ground-based interferometer data from Lauder, New Zealand, which indicate that intercontinental transport of biomass burning pollution from Africa often determines the local air quality.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18066150
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 12:33 pm
@parados,
Parados, the graph you posted does not specify nor correctly imply what percentage of the greenhous gases were human caused. It implies that the human caused CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are far greater than that due to natural causes. That is just an IPCC nonsense model implying humans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than do surface water evaporations.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
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
365
Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics noted that "although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change." The study looked at "multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes" and concluded "that ‘global climate will be cooling down in the next 20 years.'" The scientists concluded that even if atmospheric CO2 were to stabilize, "the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years." "The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes," Zhen-Shan and Xian concluded. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:34 pm
@parados,
As usual, you have missed the point. If you do not take something into account, how do you know it hasnt chaged ? A guess ? By leaving dust out of the modelling they failed to account for its reflectivity, therefore the planet will be cooler than predicted on that alone.

Quote:
Do you feel because you have been sent into this world half made up that it allows you to make up plots, libels and dreams?
Your inability to see plots from the Global Warming Thuggees is nothing short of religious devotion. That the world will get hotter is their dream. Only then will people see how important they really are....

Quote:
Why don't you try to make an argument about how snow doesn't normally occur when the temperature is 27 degrees F.
Your attempts to deflect criticism are bizzarre and childish. Why dont you make an argumant about how it doesnt get hotter when the planet comes out of an Ice Age ? You do know that the earth has only had glaciers and polar ice for 10% of its time ? Parody ? You did know that didnt you ?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:52 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
As usual, you have missed the point. If you do not take something into account, how do you know it hasnt chaged ? A guess ? By leaving dust out of the modelling they failed to account for its reflectivity, therefore the planet will be cooler than predicted on that alone.

That is an interesting argument Ionus but a flawed one. The planet can't cool from dust staying the same. It can only cool if there is an increase in dust. Without evidence of MORE dust there is nothing to support your statement. It is YOU that hasn't taken into account the facts.

Unlike Beatrice, it seems you prefer to be mastered by dust.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 07:18 pm
@parados,
Did you know I read your posts before replying ? Clearly this is something you dont think you have to do. Perhaps if I type it in capitals you will see it...MODELLING DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DUST WHEN PREDICTING GLOBAL WARMING...this means there was less reflectivity of heat arriving...therefore it showed the planet to achieve a greater heat than was really possible. Now do you understand ?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 10:45 pm
Wrong, ionus. If you actually read the link I posted, you would see that the IPCC specifically INCLUDES DUST in discussing forcings positive and negative (and of course they treat it as a negative forcing, but it doesn't have much of an effect).
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 12:24 am
@MontereyJack,
You said they discussed it ? Does that mean you agree it was not included in the computer model ? Quite severe winters for several years have been caused by dust but it shouldnt be included ? Perhaps the achieved result is not the desired one if dust is included.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 04:28 am
No, ionus, dust is specifically included in a number of climate models (as well as assessments of relative weights of the various forcings affecting climate change). You really ought to do at least a little fact-checking before you make these sweeping--and incorrect--statements.

Here, for example, are the first three cites when you google "Is the effect of dust included in climate models?" If you read down the rest of the cites you will find many more:

Search ResultsNASA GISS: Science Briefs: Modeling the Dust Bowl Climate Forcings
Oct 22, 2009 ... When the effect of dust is included in our climate model, we get a much more realistic simulation of the drought. ...
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/cook_01/ - Cached - SimilarModelling mineral dust aerosol in a climate model: Sensitivity to ...
by S Woodward - 2000 - All 5 versions
The modelling of mineral dust in climate models is a relatively new field and many ... effects of mineral dust has been developed for the Hadley Centre climate model. ... gravitational settling and below cloud scavenging is included. ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021850200904415 - SimilarA regional climate modeling study of the effect of desert dust on ...
by A KONARE - 2008 - Cited by 8 - Related articles
[1] We investigate the effect of the shortwave radiative forcing of Saharan dust on the West African monsoon with a regional climate model interactively ...
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20526098
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 04:30 am
That cut-and-paste didn't work particularly well. Google it for yourself. Basically every time you guys think you've come up with something that hasn't been considered, it has in fact been considered and someone on your side of the issue just doesn't seem to be able to read and comprehend well.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:18 am
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090326-dust-ocean-warming.html

The warming of Atlantic Ocean waters in recent decades is largely due to declines in airborne dust from African deserts and lower volcanic emissions, a new study suggests.

Since 1980, the tropical North Atlantic has been warming by an average of a half-degree Fahrenheit (a quarter-degree Celsius) per decade.

While that number may sound small, it can translate to big impacts on hurricanes, which are fueled by warm surface waters, said study team member Amato Evan of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. For example, the ocean temperature difference between 1994, a quiet hurricane year, and 2005's record-breaking year of storms (including Hurricane Katrina), was just 1 degree Fahrenheit.

Evan and his colleagues had previously shown that African dust and other airborne particles can suppress hurricane activity by reducing how much sunlight reaches the ocean and keeping the sea surface cool. Dusty years predict mild hurricane seasons, while years with low dust activity " including 2004 and 2005 " have been linked to stronger and more frequent storms.

In the new study, the researchers investigated the exact effect of dust and volcanic emissions on ocean temperatures. They combined satellite data of dust and other particles with existing climate models and calculated how much of the Atlantic warming observed during the last 26 years could be accounted for by simultaneous changes in African dust storms and tropical volcanic activity, primarily the eruptions of El Chichón in Mexico in 1982 and Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.

The results: More than two-thirds of this upward trend in recent decades can be attributed to changes in African dust storm and tropical volcano activity during that time.

This was a surprisingly large amount, Evan said.

The results, detailed in the March 27 issue of the journal Science, suggest that only about 30 percent of the observed Atlantic temperature increases are due to other factors, such as a warming climate.

"This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast," Evan said.

This adjustment brings the estimate of global warming's impact on the Atlantic more in line with the smaller degree of ocean warming seen elsewhere, such as the Pacific.

Of course, this doesn't discount the importance of global warming, Evan said, but indicates that newer climate models will need to include dust storms as a factor to accurately predict how ocean temperatures will change.

Satellite research of dust-storm activity is relatively young, and no one yet understands what drives dust variability from year to year. And volcanic eruptions are still relatively unpredictable.

"We don't really understand how dust is going to change in these climate projections, and changes in dust could have a really good effect or a really bad effect," Evan said.

More research and observations of the impact of dust will help answer that question.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 07:52 am
@ican711nm,
Are you suddenly afflicted with a disease that prevents you from calculating the percentages ican? You seem more than happy to do the math (often wrong) when you think it supports your arguments.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:36 pm
Interesting statistic, if you can even believe half of what those people publish , average January, 2010 temperature for Central England is recorded as 1.4 degrees C, which is about 4 degrees colder than January, 1998, which we are told was one of the warmest years on record. The reported average for January, 2010 is also the 9th coldest recorded Central England January in the last 100 years, and a full 2.1 degrees colder than 100 years ago during January of 1910.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#CET
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

Even though some of the people have been caught red handed in regard to trying to hide or fudge numbers, I still think the Central England temperature record is a good one to watch, because it is one of the longest records that we have for an important geographic area. As Junkscience appropriately points out, there are still questions about heat island effects, etc., and the people have not been forthcoming in regard to providing original data. It is my thought however that perhaps the reports of coverup or fraud may make the folks there a little more honest? I hope so.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 06:19 pm
@MontereyJack,
Previously in this thread it was discussed and agreed that the modelling that was used to predict future Global Warming, as opposed to seperate local climates, was in error as it left out dust. I am currently looking for it, and you are welcome to find it first. Dust was left out of computer modelled world wide climate change.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 01:50 am
Considering that dust was being looked at in modeling as early as the 70's (see Weart's history), and considering that even a cursory search turns up stuff in the early 2000s (e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.A23C0814S), and considering the Saharan Mineral Dust Experiment SAMUM, I tend to think that those who "agreed" dust wasn't considered were the usual denialists who seem to spend their time with their head buried in the sand rather than studying the blowing sand.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 02:11 am
@MontereyJack,
So you can tell us how it was included if they had no idea of how much to allow ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/22/2024 at 08:37:28