Global Warming vs. Terrorism

ah, it's time for new glasses, or a larger font on my monitor. Try this:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

So if I am interpreting your official website, Figure 2 indicates a total of 215 billion metric tons of carbon produced from all sources, both natural and man caused. Of that total, you have 6.3 produced from fossil fuels and 1.7 from changing land use, so total of 8.0 man caused, which translates into about 3.7% of CO2 being emitted is man-caused. Actually this is similar to the website I cited, which shows it at 3.225%. If you take the CO2 produced by only fossil fuels burning, the DOE site shows 2.9%, but anyway, the figures are close. So my figures stand pretty good as taken. If my calculations are wrong, let me know. So, perhaps appropriate to post again:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Username, the information on CO2 in your site ignores the influence of water vapor, which is thought to be the predominant greenhouse gas. So your site is informative inasfar as it goes, but pretty lacking to cover the subject other than the information given on man-caused greenhouse gases, but that is only one very small part of the entire picture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okie- Here is something for puerile Parados to pick his teeth with--

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming

N. Scafetta

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA




B. J. West

Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA




Abstract

We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.


Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.

Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships.
*************************************************************

Note- Okie--done in March 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okie- The idiocies supplied by Puerile Parados and Username do not square with the evidence. BEFORE CO2 WAS PUMPED INTO THE AIR ON A LARGE SCALE, SURFACE TEMPERATURES INCREASED>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some key data on what happened from 1910 to 1940 BEFORE co2 was being pumped into the air by large scale industry-



Global Warming - Climate






Temperature
Global temperatures are rising. Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.8-1.0°F (0.45-0.6°C) in the last century. The surface of the ocean has also been warming at a similar rate. Studies that combine land and sea measurements have generally estimated that global temperatures have warmed 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) in the last century. About two-thirds of this warming took place between 1900 and 1940. Global temperatures declined slightly from the 1940s through the 1970s; but have risen more rapidly during the last 25 years than in the period before 1940.


WHY DID GLOBAL TEMPERAUTURES RISE FROM 1900 TO 1940?

NO ANSWER FROM PARADOS OR USERNAME-

Why? It doesn't fit their thesis that Co2 causes temperatures to rise!

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

Why did Global temperatures decline slightly between 1940 and 1970?

NO ANSWER FROM PARADOS OR USERNAME.

Why? It doesn't fit their thesis that Co2 causes temperatures to rise!

Okie wrote:

Bernard, have you read Page 62, wherein I related to Parados the scenario about the environmentalists causing the hauling of garbage from Kansas to Oklahoma as an example of a total waste of energy, wear and tear on highways, and an unnecessary loss of life? I think Parados has been rendered speechless, as he has no answer to the logical conclusion of that situation, wherein the tree huggers are totally documented as a total bunch of losers.

END OF QUOTE

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

Absolutely- They believe the garbage that has been tossed around for years about recycling.

Here is what Dr. Lomborg says in his excellent book-The Skeptical Environmentalist-

P. 209

quote

"If the entire US Twenty-first century waste can contained within a single landfill in part of Woodland County Oklahoma, we must consider whether recycling to avoid waste is a GOOD INVESTMENT OF RESOURCES...New studies seem to indicate that it actually costs more to recycle paper than to produce new paper"

end of quote

You said it, Okie--"a total bunch of losers"---"The tree huggers"

Okie- Note-

I defy Username to respond to this post. It completely ruins his blah-blah about CO2--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least Username gives some statistics instead of mindless name calling.

I am certain that one of the ways to know whether your arguments are winning, Gungasnake, is when your adversaries begin to name call. That means they are frustrated and have no rational arguments left.

Now to look at Username's interesting post----


According to Marland et. al. in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change

see

www.http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm


"the annual Global Carbon emissions went up from One Billion Tons per year in 1925 to Four Billion Tons per year in 1975".

This did not appear to cause any rise in the surface temperature which did not start to climb until 1980.

Mr. Username does not tell us that about 55 percent of the released Co2 is absorbed again by the oceans, by northern forest regrowth and generally by increased plant growth> The concentration of CO2 has increased by 31 percent from pre-industrial times to the present day.


Mr. Username's post may frighten some of us but Mr. Username must first answer these questions:

l. HOW MUCH DOES THE INCREASED AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE AFFECT US? IF THE EFFECT IS SLIGHT, GLOBAL WARMING MAY NOT BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT.

2.COULD THERE BE OTHER CAUSES BEHIND THE INCREASING TEMPERATURE?( I have posted some scientific peer-reviewed studies which claim that solar activity may be the cause of a great deal of the slight rise in temperature)

3. Are the scenarios written up by the IPCC reasonable? Some of the Assumptions fed into the IPCC scenarios are off the mark( just as the predictions made by the hapless purveyor of doom--Paul Ehrlich( who said we would all starve to death by 2000 because we could not control the population growth or grow enough food)

Ehrlich was way off. So are some of the IPCC assumptions!


Now, Username, Instead of just bloviating, I gave a link. Do you have one for your claims or do you really expect me to take your claim on faith.

I have found that the defenders of Global Warming are quick to bloviate but cannot come up with scientific peer-approved studies.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS - USERNAME OR ARE YOU UNABLE TO DO SO???

Okie- Username and Pathetic Parados have not responded to this post either.

Is it because they cannot do so?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. O"Donnell wrote:

By stating that solar irradiance is a factor in the warming, does not mean there aren't any other factors. In fact, I think Bernie cited another study similar to this one that actually gave figures that support the fact that the anthropogenic effect was a very dominant cause.
end of quote-

Of course, and no one would say that there are no other factors, but the question still remains:

How much of a factor is solar irradiance?
(see Okie's excellent links)

Can we precisely measure the effect of solar irradiance?

If we can, how do we DISENTAGLE its effects from the alleged effects of CO2?

How can we be sure that Solar Irradiance does not act synergistically with the alleged tiny global warming effects from CO2?

And, what do we do about it?

Block out the sun's rays????? LOL

BR, are you on hold with the Encyclopaedia Britannica folks?

Recycling is an interesting subject in and of itself. I have read a few snippets here and there to indicate recycling of some products may be very wasteful, and common sense would also raise such suspicions, so Bernard, does that subject warrant a new thread? I would need to do some research, but simply one example would tell me that raw material, such as tree pulp, or lets take glass, it may be much cheaper and more efficient to grow new trees for pulp to make paper or to mine silica sand to produce glass, because it eliminates the very significant costs of energy, labor, and other resources to collect and transport the stuff to recycle. Recycling may use much more energy than required to produce from raw material. Since trees are renewable, and silica sand is so plentiful, I see little reason to recycle for purposes of shortages of the material.

This is a perfect example of the emotions of people trumping facts and reason. Stuff is recycled, and people feel good, even though in the process more energy is wasted, plus the products end up costing more.

Okie- I am sure you will notice that I often take what is posted by the Global Warmist- READ THE LINK--and then respond to it and often REBUT IT. But Username and Parados must be quite afraid to read my posts and my links and try to rebut them because they don't.

Now, Okie-- HERE is PART of Xingu's post-


Global-warming deniers like to complain that scientists base their predictions on faulty computer models. But Hansen's calculations show that we don't need a computer to know how temperature will respond to a given change in the greenhouse -- or a change in dustiness, or forest cover, or the amount of ice on the Arctic Ocean. Solid geological field data give us everything we need -- and provide a check for computer models. And lend credibility to Hansen's predictions.

END OF QUOTE


SOLID GEOLOGICAL FIELD DATA GIVE US EVERYTHING WE NEED_

R I D I C U L O U S!!!

Note-Bulletin of the American Meterological Society- Title- "Detection and Attribution of recent Climate Change: A Status Report"

quote--

At present, it is debateable whether there is enough TEMPERATURE PROXY DATA TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF HEMISPHERIC, LET ALONE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES GIVEN THE LACK OF LARGE SPATIAL SCALE COHERENCE IN THE DATA-

end of quote.


They don't have enough world wide data, Okie!!!!

http://ams.allenpress.co

Pathetic Parados posted a link. Unlike him, I do not soil myself in fear when I see a link. HE APPARENTLY NEVER READS A LINK OF MINE AND TRIES TO REBUT IT. NOW, I WILL POST THE'


CONCLUSION


TO HIS LINK.

page | Next page Other reports in this collection

3.7.4 Conclusions
The differences among the CO2 concentrations projected with the various SRES scenarios considered are larger than the differences caused by inclusion or omission of climate-mediated feedbacks. The range of uptake rates projected by process-based models for any one scenario is, however, considerable, due to uncertainties about (especially) terrestrial ecosystem responses to high CO2 concentrations, which have not yet been resolved experimentally, and uncertainties about the response of global NPP to changes in climate (Cramer et al., 1999). A smaller feedback would be implied if, as some models indicate, global NPP increases with warming throughout the relevant range of climates and no forest die back occurs. Larger positive feedbacks would be implied if regional drying caused partial die back of tropical forests, as some of the DGVMs in Cramer et al. (2001), and one coupled climate-carbon model study of Cox et al. (2000), suggest; however, another coupled climate-carbon model study (Friedlingstein et al., 2001) suggests a smaller feedback. Uncertainty also arises due to differences in the climate responses of ocean models, especially as regards the extent and effects (biological as well as physical) of increased stratification in a warmer climate (Joos et al., 1999b).

In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st century. The importance of anthropogenic emissions is underlined by the expectation that the proportion of emissions taken up by both ocean and land will decline at high atmospheric CO2 concentrations (even if absolute uptake by the ocean continues to rise). There is considerable uncertainty in projections of future CO2 concentration, because of uncertainty about the effects of climate change on the processes determining ocean and land uptake of CO2. These uncertainties do not negate the main finding that anthropogenic emissions will be the main control.

Large-scale manipulations of terrestrial ecosystems have been proposed as a means of slowing the increase of atmospheric CO2 during the 21st century in support of the aims of the Kyoto Protocol (Tans and Wallace, 1999; IPCC, 2000a). Based on current understanding of land use in the carbon cycle, the impacts of future land use on terrestrial biosphere-atmosphere exchanges have the potential to modify atmospheric CO2 concentrations on this time-scale. Direct effects of land-use changes are thought to represent about 10 to 30% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Table 3.1), so there is scope for either intended or unintended changes in land use to reduce or increase total anthropogenic emissions. But the possibilities for enhancing natural sinks have to be placed in perspective: a rough upper bound for the reduction in CO2 concentration that could be achieved by enhancing terrestrial carbon uptake through land-use change over the coming century is 40 to 70 ppm (Section 3.2.2.2), to be considered against a two to four times larger potential for increasing CO2 concentraion by deforestation, and a >400 ppm range among the SRES scenarios (Figure 3.12).

END OF CONCLUSIONS-

Since I know you read this material, Okie, I am certain that you have noted how weak it is.

Look for Uncertainties

Uncertainties

A smaller feedback

Considerable Uncertainties

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

Indeed, Okie, as I already told Pathetic Parados,( but of course, he didn't even read it AS I JUST READ HIS LINK) the term UNCERTAINTY AND/OR UNCERTAIN APPEAR 43 TIMES IN THE REPORT FROM THE IPCC( P A R A D O S' S O U R C E).

If we access commentaries quoting from the report from the National Academy of Sciences

www.tcsdaily.com/article/aspx?id=060701F

which, reviews the IPCC REPORT REFERENCED BY PATHETIC PARADOS,

WE FIND THE FOLLOWING FROM PATHETIC PARADOS'S IPPC REPORT.

QUOTE:

"Because there is CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, CURRENT ESTIMATES OF THE MAGNITUDE OF FUTURE WARMING SHOULD BE REGARDED AS TENATIVE"


T H A T, O K I E, I S F R O M T H E I P C C R E P O R T CONCLUSIONS R E F E R E N C E D B Y P A R A D O S>

Will he explain it? No, Okie, he wont!! He is pathetic!!!


I am sure that he will not notice that I took his LINK apart!!!!!!!

He is too frightened to read and comment on mine!!!

What is being hauled is probably not garbage in the sense of vegetable peels and old notebooks and broken furniture but toxic substances.

As for the final paragraph . . . it is in the realm of fiction.

The cost of making paper includes the cost -- to the planet and to animals and, even, to unworthy-of-consideration human beings -- of cutting down forests.

It would appear that since Plain Ol Me has eaten almost all of the grass on her side of the meadow, she thinks no more will grow there.

If she is able to read words of more than two syllables, she is referred to Dr. Bjorn Lomborg's book-"The Skeptical Environmentalist" where on Page 111, he uses the FAO as a source. The FAO indicated that its survey found "that the area covered by forest had SHRUNK from 32.66 percent from 1961 to 32.66 percent in 2000. That is to say that it has fallen by 0.44 percentage points over the last 35 years or so". That means, of course, less than one half of one percent in the last thirty five years. While some of the less advanced countries, probably because of their non-existent or corrupt leadership, such as most of the countries in Africa, have lost some forests, most advanced countries have INCREASED their forest areas--The US is among those countries with more forest area NOW than it had at the beginning of the last century!

In parts of Oklahoma, there were hardly any trees whatsoever before 1900, and some of these same areas are now fairly thickly populated with trees of all kinds.

I saw a study once, I can't find it now, that I think indicated there are more trees now in the lower 48 than in 1776. Anyway I am fairly sure that is true in Oklahoma, where the regions of prairies have given away to settlement and trees galore.

Okie- Plain Ol Me does not know it,but she is obviously contributing to the destruction of the environment by eating all that grass!!

And Bernard, think of the methane produced from all the eating grass, one of the worst greenhouse gases! This is one of the reasons some tree hugging vegetarians do not like cows at all. If I was plainoldme, I would take off those sunglasses and keep my eyes peeled for the dreaded vegetarians that might be targeting cows for extinction. Cows were brought here by the evil Europeans, supplanting the natural indigenous species that roamed the earth, and that was not considered a good thing at all.

Yup, that's why we are importing Canadian buffulo beef.