Global warming greatest in past decade
September 1, 2008Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.
"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record."
The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings.
"We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously," says Mann. In today's (Sept. 2) online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers note, "Conclusions are less definitive for the Southern Hemisphere and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere."
The research team included Mann; Ray Bradley, university distinguished professor, geosciences and director, Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm Hughes, regents' professor, and Fenbiao Ni, research associate, the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona; Zhihua Zhang and Sonya Miller, research associates, meteorology, Penn State; and Scott Rutherford, assistant professor, environmental sciences, Roger Williams University.
The National Research Council suggested revisiting surface temperatures in their "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years," to include newer data and techniques and confirmed results of a 1990s paper by Mann and colleagues.
Results of this study without tree-ring data show that for the Northern Hemisphere, the last 10 years are likely unusually warm for not just the past 1,000 as reported in the 1990s paper and others, but for at least another 300 years going back to about A.D. 700 without using tree-ring data. The same conclusion holds back to A.D. 300 if the researchers include tree-ring data.
One of the reasons that including tree-ring data in these studies raises possible concerns is something called the "segment length curse." This "curse" occurs because trees put on rings every year, but older trees put on narrower rings. When tree ring researchers piece together tree-ring series from two trees, they must account for this factor in how they combine the later rings on one tree with the earlier rings on a younger tree. In the process, some information regarding long-term trends can be lost.
"Ten years ago, we could not simply eliminate all the tree-ring data from our network because we did not have enough other proxy climate records to piece together a reliable global record," says Mann. "With the considerably expanded networks of data now available, we can indeed obtain a reliable long-term record without using tree rings."
The new study shows that, with caveats, tree-ring data can be used, but that even without including that data, it is clear that the anomalous nature of recent warmth, which most scientists believe to be a result of human impacts on climate, is a reality.
Source: Penn State
Feb 08, 2010
But, yes... sampling and measuring techniques do change over the years so it is good to check results again if other studies start to show different results.
His tree ring "chronology" was totally fabricated.
No self-respecting scientist would take his work seriously.
It is a shame that this web site is promoting political idealogy rather than genuine science.
you quite alone (with few) to deny the reality. It is not this web site that is showing to world the global warming trend, but a vaste number of very reliable reputation.
May the Goricle's minions rate my comment a "1"...
In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial."
http://www.dailytech.com/Sun Makes History First Spotless Month in a Century/article12823.htm
Science believes it too controversial to publish 10 year projections based upon data, but they have no problem publishing projections that the ice caps will melt in 50 years.
What objectivity!
Actually the ice cores have been called in to question by scientists. A NAS report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstruction for the Last 2000 Years" says the following:
"In Greenland, the 20th century warmth is not higher than that during medieval times (11th century). In the Canadian Arctic, ice isotopic ratio records from the Agassiz Ice Cap on Ellesmere Island show warming over the last 150 years, which is unprecedented for the last millennium (Fisher et al. 1995). As a group, the ice cores from interior Antarctica (Figure 6-2) show nothing anomalous about the 20th century (Masson et al. 2000)."
If you look around in the report you can find comments indicating that ice cores from mid latitudes can be affected in the opposite fashion as cores from the polar regions. They dance around it quite a bit but do admit the resolution of the temperatures is around 2 degrees.
Another study (Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. and Ono, N., 1992b. %u201CDo glaciers tell a true
atmospheric CO2 story?%u201D The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284.) where ice cores were compared to actual measured CO2 concentrations indicate that ice cores contain less CO2 than is present in the atmosphere.
You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. Directly said, it is really a false inference. Because climate is affected by various elements. It is not because some of these elements caused the earth to be warmer some time ago that human made Co2/dioxines can't warm the earth as well. Your argument is equal to saying that "A" causes "C" so "B" can't cause "C". That is not logical at all. It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?
But given the inherent irresponsible nature of human beings, maybe they do not deserve to exist.
Google:- Caspar and the Jesus paper.
The Bishop Hill Blog goes into (long)detail,but cuts most of the technical complication.
Treerings to show temperature have been shown to be unreliable.More than temp can vary the rings and a paper on this site a month or so ago shows that trees have a built-in thermostat which would even out some external temp effect on ring growth.
The one I refered to above is an a try to resurrect the original hockey stick,still worth a look.Shows the lengths the people will go to.
You are not correct to infer that human made co2/dioxines are not causing global warming because the North Pole had more a less ice some time ago. Directly said, it is really a false inference. Because climate is affected by various elements. It is not because some of these elements caused the earth to be warmer some time ago that human made Co2/dioxines can't warm the earth as well. Your argument is equal to saying that "A" causes "C" so "B" can't cause "C". That is not logical at all. It is a stupid way, a wrong way to try to convince people that Co2/dioxines are not causing global warming. You are creating noise so that peoples get confused over global warming and this is quite a sad attitude given the terrible impacts and consequences that global warming is having. Have you ever thought that you could be wrong, even just a little bit? Isn't wisdom telling you that this attitude contributes to a serious problem and that it would be wiser to refrain from persuing it?
CO2 does not cause global warming. I challenge you to write out the proofs that it does. If I find fault with them and can back myself up you must yield.
This is a fun game where real science makes your AGW rhetoric go by the wayside and perhaps Physorg will stop pandering to the liberal failure that is AGW.
I assume you are a human being? Do you volunteer to commit suicide first?
Or should you be one of the 'enlightened' to decide the fate of the rest?
From a previous commenter, bears repeating.
Its quite confusing to follow the supposed logic above. Let's see... a) Sure, agreed, earth is warming at least recently, though we're not sure if its the highest average temp ever seen. b) Sure, agreed, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase earth's temperature. c) Sure, agreed, humans are increasing atmosphere's GHG levels by large fractional factors. d) BUT since I hate the implications of this scientist's conclusions I still BELIEVE they're wrong.
I knew i'd seen it somewhere once before. Its religion.
" I prefer a warmer earth over a colder one, and plants love CO2".
I like category 4 hurricanes over tropical storms because they are more exciting to follow, and hurricanes love CO2.
Not true. There has been no increase in intensity or occurance of hurricanes and tropical storms over the past 30 years.
AGW failed on that prediction. It may seem like there are more or greater hurricanes/typhoons/etc but that's simply a sign of how well telecommunication has improved.
This fact would also point to a failure in AGW to prove that the Earth's retained energy budget has increased due to AGW.
http://wind.mit.e...hro2.htm
1) Do you mean Dioxins instead of Dioxines? If so, what relevance do they have to AGW?
2) I consider whether I may be wrong. So far the following tend to mitigate against it:
a) lack of any reasonable proof that this is anything but a natural warming trend,
b) the intolerance to normal scientific criticism shown by the proponents,
c) the call that doing something is good even if the theory is wrong (whatever the cost) reeks of Pascal's Wager.
d) the eagerness in which politicians and the eco-extreme support this is also a negative factor.
e) the result if I'm wrong will be a minor, temporary increase in the global mean temperature that will have positive effects as well as any negative effects.
And now you ask that others undertake a fool's errand?
CO2 does not cause global warming. I challenge you to write out the proofs that it does. If I find fault with them and can back myself up you must yield.
This is a fun game where real science makes your AGW rhetoric go by the wayside and perhaps Physorg will stop pandering to the liberal failure that is AGW.
It is said that it is proven with 95% certainty that they aer causing global warming (IPCC). For some it is enough to get their act together. While so far I have heard non-sense arguments from those who argue militantly that the 5% are enough to deny any call to actions. some of their false arguments:
1- the earth was once warmer than today
2- the IPCC did not take into account water moster (this was from you Velanarris)
3- the last 10 years temperatures show a decline
all of which are 100% wrong in infering that Co2/dioxins are not causing global warming.
Anyone who does a little reading will understand this in no time. Except if you have the intention to create confusion. You can find some arguments because there are still 5% uncertainty by the way, but please spare us the non-sense.
Did read it (quotes):
"There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995"
"Q: Is the intensity of hurricanes increasing with time?
A: There is some evidence that it is"
1- dioxide (not dioxins)
2a)- basic chimical and physic at college should already be enough to be able to understand the basics: gaz in the earth atmosphere reflects solar energy back to earth. That is a 100% normal and natural process that makes sense, is logical and holds in basic science that can be relied on. In some case it might not work (against all expectations), then prove in which cases? If you can, you win because the very basics of physics and chimistry principals tells us that they do reflects energy. You have to prove that this is wrong, if you want to make a point, because evidences are not on your side at all.
2d) the politicians are not moving very fast as far as most experts are concernd and if you call more than 50% of the world population (those who support more mitigating actions) "eco-extermist", you must see extremist all the time.
2e) there are still a lot of poeple who do not see the urgent need of actions, should they be led to support actions, this will be a major political incentive for gorvernment to regulate more strongly the automobile, energy and other Co2 generating economic activites.
There isn't one proof there but I'll reply anyway.
1)
"IPCC panel member John R. Christy says, 'I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but most of us see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.'"
Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy in the Nov 1, 2007 Wall Street Journal.
http://mobile2.ws...php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
2) Water vapor has a higher than 50% albedo.
3) The last 10 years show a decline in what?
According to the IPCC the CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 13 degree increase in global temperature. If this was the case the math supports thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus. Since CO2 has been over 1000 ppm in the past, (where as today it's approx 280-300 ppm), then AGW should prove that neither you nor I can have this conversation because the planet is currently several hundred degrees celsius, but here we are.
So, I'll give you another shot, provide a proof that AGW is occuring or concede.
Show me the disregard.
Move away from the hurricanes like most smart people did in the past.
First some replies:
1- Quote: "IPCC panel member John R. Christy"
reply: the chair of IPCC is Mr. Pachauri.
2- Quote: "Your 95% is called into question by that statement made by Christy"
reply: were the data taken from above the clouds? If so it should show some decrease, while data from bellow the clouds show an increase.
3- quote: "thermal runaway meaning the Earth would turn into Venus"
reply: the feedback is not always large, it is a false assumption to assume it is.
The proof is the IPCC report. As far as I am concerned, the basic physics and chimistry class I had are enough to understand that it make sense that Co2 are causing global warming. Common sense, and I will not go over the basic law of gaz in detail here because I don't have that time, and this is why I refer to IPCC to summerize it better that I would. But from my perspective, from what I have learned, you have a long way to prove that Co2 is not causing Global Warming, harder for you since you already agree that water moister does!
"cientists have discovered a correlation between hurricane activity in the Atlantic and thick clouds of dust that periodically rise from the Sahara Desert and blow off Africa%u2019s northwest coast. They found that during periods of intense hurricane activity, dust was relatively scarce in the atmosphere, while in years when stronger dust storms rose up, fewer hurricanes swept across the Atlantic."
http://www.agu.or...635.html
And? Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... oh wait, the IPCC doesn't write anything, they review the peer submitted reports they choose (that agree with their political stance). It's a false assumption to assume the feedback will be of any measure what so ever if you don't have scientifically measured data to base your calculations on. Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing.
Accurately measured scientific data.
You mean the paper that the politicians released or the draft that was submitted by the scientists who quit the IPCC immediately after the political paper came out? Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it. Well they didn't. Water moisture holds heat, that's true, but the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well.
Still waiting on your facts. You should have a ton of them, especially if you actually read the IPCC paper.
You mean "dioxines" was a typo? In that case, why would you specify CO2/dioxides? That would be redundant since there is no (relevent to AGW) class of chemicals described as "dioxides".
Gases in the atmosphere also reflect radiation back out in to space. They will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another. In this way CO2 can absorb in one part of the IR spectra and emit that energy in another part of the spectra (far IR or mircrowave/RF.)
Here's a little primer on absorption, reflectance, and scattering: http://209.85.141...0etc.doc co2 "emission spectra" "infrared" microwave -laser -lasers -exhaust -greenhouse -polymers -sensor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en
Don't use "most experts" unless you have numbers to back it up. As far as I'm aware no quantative survey of "experts" (or even a uniform definition of what an expert is) has been done.
The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of the world's population and they have stated clearly that they are not going to limit their CO2 emissions to anything less that the western countries emit.
Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000 in taxes on the backs of their population will have a very hard sell.
Quote: "And?"
Reply: The point did try to make is lost.
Quote: "Well lets turn to the IPCC report stating exactly where the measurements were taken..... "
Reply: you did try to make a point using the Paper by Christy, well, you don't have a point.
Quote: "Now what is the one thing that IPCC scientists are missing"
Reply: you do agree that Co2 reflects heat? Then explain to me how this does not lead to an increase in temperature. Tell you what, you can't.
Quote: "feedback will be of any measure"
Reply: certainly not that it will be always large.
Quote: "Cool, explain how then. If it's so easy let's see it"
Reply: again, you do agree that Co2 reflects heat. Do you need a proof of that?
Quote: "Well they didn't"
reply: please keep to facts this will avoid other readers to be misguided. The paper is easy to read and to understand for anyone. Which line is bad? Well, you could isolate and manipulate the lines, which paragraph is false?
Quote: "the more heat that water moisture holds the higher it's albedo as well"
Reply: So?
So far you have come up with arguments that can't claim at all that Co2 is not causing the earth to warm.
DKA, how does more CO2 increase the temperature of the Earth if the IR bands at which CO2 absorbs IR are past tropospheric saturation at 0.0038 ppm CO2?
Quote: "will absorb and emit strongest at their prefered wavelengths but energy coming in at one wavelength can be reemitted at another"
Reply: are you saying that Co2 does not cause more heat to be trapped than if would not have been there in the first place?
Quote: "The last I heard, China and India constitute more than 50% of.."
Reply: You are clearly wrong on this, every government on this planet wants to do something about Co2 and global warming. What they feel is challenging and needs negotiation is how.
Quote: "Any government that tries to add US$50,000,000,000,000"
Reply: This is a non-issue when the costs of destructions cause by Global Warming amounts to many times more in tax than the amount needed to control Co2 emissions. Another flashy but false and maybe ill-intended argurment of yours.
That's exactly what we're saying.
No, many countries have said they're not going to do it because there is a lack of evidence for the AGW hypothesis.
No his argument is sound. I repeat, inform us of the mechanism through which increased CO2 traps more heat when the total saturation point of CO2 is 0.0038 ppm.
Is it that tough to explain or are you unable to explain your own "theory" due to it's lack of evidence?
It may not. The theory that CO2 will trap more heat is based off of laboratory experiments on CO2's effects and the (unproven) belief that Venus' temperature is due to greenhouse gases.
Since laboratory experiments are simplifications of the real world the results don't always apply. Just ask any civil or structural engineer.
From http://network.na...-31.aspx
And http://www.news.c...,00.html
Per country? US$50 Trillion is just the cost to the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc will have equal costs. China and India won't have any since their excluded.
And the results? There hasn't been any destruction that can be proven to be GW related. And don't bring up Katrina, it was a Class 3 huricane when it hit New Orleans. There have been 3 Class 5 huricanes to make landfall in the last 108 years (1935, 1969, and 1992.)
Not really.
It's a logical deduction from the basic Physical Laws of the Universe as applied to an irradiated body with a reflectivity less than 1 surrounded by an interface having asymmetrical transmissive characteristics over the bandwidth in question.
I don't disagree with the above statement but in order to trap more energy you need to be trapping less than all energy initially.
If I have a liter of water and I pour it from a 1 liter bucket into a 2 liter bucket then yes I have more capacity to hold the water, but without a source of more water I cannot ever hold more than the 1 liter of water in the bucket.
That's where my argument against the whole CO2 causing AGW lies. Now if you can show me where the extra energy is comming from I'll change my views.
GrayMouser, your quote about India is crealy wrong. The Indian Canadian who wrote this is an idiot. And you quoted him! The article refers to what an Indian Canadian thinks, not what India and the Indian PM think.
According to Indian Prime minister, Global warming is an urgent issue to be dealt with.
I mean that you are so wrong, that please, for everyone's reading time here, be more careful when you edit. Also it takes some time to help you, while if you do more effort, it would everyone else some time.
The rest of your comments are all the same, too easy to check off. how should I deal with this now? If you can avoid to make a false claim, I can spend more energy answering you other ones, but not in this condition. It seems that you are looking for anykind of flashy news to make people think false about global warming.
Per country? US$50 Trillion is just the cost to the US. The EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc will have equal costs. China and India won't have any since their excluded.
And the results? There hasn't been any destruction that can be proven to be GW related. And don't bring up Katrina, it was a Class 3 huricane when it hit New Orleans. There have been 3 Class 5 huricanes to make landfall in the last 108 years (1935, 1969, and 1992.)
My apologies, my last comment was not well formated (I am getting lost in the quoting methodology).
Here is what I was editing:
GrayMouser, your quote about India is crealy wrong. The Indian Canadian who wrote this is an idiot. And you quoted him! The article refers to what an Indian Canadian thinks (1 person), not what India nor the Indian PM think.
According to Indian Prime minister, Global warming is an urgent issue to be dealt with.
http://www.expres...id=89455
I mean that you are so wrong, that please, for everyone's reading time here, be more careful when you edit. Also it takes some time to help you understand your mistakes, while if you do more efforts, it would save everyone else some time. The rest of your comments are all the same, too easy to check off. how should we deal with this now? If you can avoid to make a false claim, I can spend more energy answering you other ones, but not in this condition. It seems that you are looking for anykind of flashy news only to make people think false about global warming.
Precisely; no "extra" energy required, just less escaping. Which is exactly what happens when the transmissivity of the interface changes so as to become more opaque at long wavelengths.
Inbound supra-IR is absorbed, and re-radiated as IR. With the interface now less transparent to IR, less IR energy escapes, and the total thermal energy of the body and any other mass between it and the interface increases, raising its temperature.
To use the analogy of pouring water into a into a container, it's the equivalent of the container having holes which are slowly being plugged, so that the level of water in the container rises, even though the rate of inflow has not changed.
Yes but we're incapable of plugging the holes.
I'm not saying Global warming isn't occuring. I'm saying we're not the cause. The current financial sacrifices we're making aren't being made for valid reasons. The current AGW research is inferior science being pushed by a political agenda.
One step at time; let's first conclude the specific matter at hand.
Does this mean that you now understand that 1) CO2 contributes to radiative forcing; and 2) such effect is directly proportional (note that I do not here say linearly) to the level of CO2?
I've seen Valanarris's laughable "fact" about CO2 IR absorption being saturated more than once, but as you can see here,
http://www.atmos....sir.html , the only saturation occurs at >14 microns and a few minor peaks between 2 and 5 microns. Valanarris is either a fool or a liar. I'll let you take your pick.
You don't bother to read the material before responding, do you?
The first quote was from a former IPCC member. His word should be gospel to you. If that isn't enough, how about the following quotes from another former IPCC member in his testimony to the US Senate:
The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true, Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers' objections into account.
Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.
The second quote was from India's National Action Plan for Climate Change:
http://www.pewcli.../06-2008
http://pmindia.ni...1-52.pdf
Note the quote, it says simply that India WILL increase their per capita CO2 output until they are happy with their standard of living. Count the number of people in India against the Western countries combined populations. Guess what it adds up to in tonnes of CO2 production?
As for China... Much more material available:
http://www.ccchin...e229.pdf
This is based on outside estimates of China's emissions. If the numbers are better than yours... Use them (it looks better that way.)
Coal gasification is anethma in the USA and Europe. And new coal development? Political suicide.
http://news.bbc.c...7671.stm
http://www.ccchin...e188.pdf
China says
"current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated from developed countries, while per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and the share of global emissions originating from developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."
"the developed country Parties shall take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof."
Guess what? This says that, as one of the 'developing countries' it ain't their problem...
Notice that they define it on the basis of GDP. China has doubled their GDP (approximatly every 5 years since 1974 [http://www.chinab.../GDP.htm]) between 2002 and 2007. That means their total emissions have gone up.
What part of "to reach the development level of the industrialized countries, it is inevitable that per capita energy consumption and CO2 emissions will reach a fairly high level" isn't clear?
By 2010 China's GDP may double again. So they'll only be producing 160% of what they are now... Wow! I'm releaved!
"China would like to appeal to the developed countries to sincerely fulfill their commitments under the Convention to provide financial assistance and transfer technology."
Can we say "Carbon Black Mail"? Send us your technology and money so that we can increase our standards of living with less CO2 per GDP unit?
The irony is that Velanarris and others fail to understand that "saturation" as here used really means that CO2 is essentially "opaque" at the wavelength(s) in question.
While that does serve to block the transmission of inbound IR, which constitutes a minority of the solar influx, it also serves to block the escape out outbound IR which, of course, is the product of the absorption supra-IR, which constitutes the majority of the solar influx.
I.e., at the wavelengths where "saturation" occurs, CO2 keeps a little IR out, but keeps a LOT of IR in!
What is the relevance to the Science under discussion?
And, are you wholly ignorant of the fact that developing nations' productions of CO2 is the result of the West 1) having exported its smokestack industries to such countries; and 2) creating the demand for the products that are manufactured by such expatriated industries?
Are you aware that, were the US to repatriate such industries, its own levels of CO2 production would be approx. 30% higher than at present?
In short, the US has simply outsourced its generation of CO2 and pollutants, many of them quite toxic.
this is decimating agriculture and business
CSIRO states this and the drought in the 1940's are caused by climate change ; specifically by the warming indian ocean
see; www.mdbc.gov.au
And your saying that developed countries FORCED those countries to accept the industries? I'm sorry, I thought China and India's militaries would oppose such an attack on their soil...
The various industries already had markets for their products. They just want to put more money in their pockets by doing the work in countries where they don't have the costs associated with the western world.
And it works to the benefit of the eco-political movement. If the people in the US and Europe saw the costs of implementing 'green' measures they wouldn't support them as vocally. Money talks...
1)I never said it didn't, I did say it was hard capped and we're far past that cap.
and 2) No it's certainly not linear. It's logarithmic.
And in regard to your following comment, you said yourself Excalibur, the IR is reradiated evenly in all directions, meaning it escapes from the atmosphere into space.
Also, the US didn't sign the Kyoto accord, we really don't care if we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Labor is cheaper in India and China, the laws are not less strict.
Who's the fool who posted a chart showing that CO2 is absolutely sunk by other gasses at those other wavelengths.
Understand your own material before you bring it to the table.
GrayMouser,
Quote: "The first quote was from a former IPCC member."
Reply: so what, he can't speak in the name of India, and still, what is said about India is still wrong. You are making a ridicilous point here. Assuming that you argument makes more credible the false idea that India does not take Global Warning seriously is 100%. Please be a little serious. You should bother a little more before making such easy false claims.
Quote: " IPCC member in his testimony to the US Senate"
Reply: Right, everyone knows that the US elected government who is receiving a lot of cash from the oil industry (to win electoral campain -it should not be aloud for company to influence democratie but well they do and abuse)is tied to it and can't support actions that go against it too much. And so does several amercian citizens, shame. But this has changed in recent years because the proof is becoming stronger. There is a very big change in scientist minds since the last few years in favor of beleiving that we know enough to link global warming to human related Co2.
Quote: "The second quote was from India's..."
Reply: Interesting to read that India thinks that Co2 is causing Global warming. Thank you for the information.
Quote: "As for China... Much more material available..."
Reply: Interesting again. Thank you. I was very concerned to read these:
"Climate change, the impacts of which have been felt all over the world, was mainly
caused by the massive emissions of CO2...."
You are concerned also right?
However I feel better when we read:
"achieve the target of about 20% reduction of energy consumption per unit GDP by
2010".
Well maybe you dissagree and don't like your own quotes!
Quote mining does not make a strong argument. The full argument is "Indian officials acknowledge that CO2 contributes to a green house effect but that human made CO2 is of an immaterial and unsubstantial amount to effect the change claimed by the UN IPCC."
That's economics. They want to reduce energy used to create exportable product. Every government has plans similar to that. The US is hoping to reduce used energy per GDP by 50% through renewable energy sources. Not to save the planet but to csave some coin.
I like his quotes when they're uneditted and not truncated.
Go easy on him, he's just following in the footsteps of the IPCC ;-)
Ridiculously blind, aren't you. The only CO2 absorption peak that is completely masked by other chemicals is the one at ~2.7 microns.
Right. Check again.
this man represents India as much as I represent the United States. And it is not because there are dissagrementsbetween him and the IPCC that this entitle him to represent the country. This argument is going way too far and if this is the kind of logic you use for your arguments it looks really twisted.
Well the IPCC is certainly more convinced this year than it was 5 years ago. And many arguments that were used before to explain the increase in temperatures by other means than Co2 have been proven false, also the strong correlation between Co2 and temperatures is standing stronger. This are very strong argument explaining how Co2 and GW are related.
"CO2 contributes to a green house effect but that human made CO2...."
Can't find this in the "India's National Action Plan for Climate".
"They want to reduce energy used to create exportable product", this is a big issue because no one wants to produce Co2, they are very well aware of their impacts (it is like a hot potato).
"Go easy on him, he's just following in the footsteps of the IPCC ;-) "
You have the IPCC in mind but I think that they have been too conservative in their assesments on the impacts of GW. Example, the predict a maximum something like 80cm of sea rise only while other researchs point to 2 to 3 meters.
Well you know this is the maximum because you commented that research about it in an another article. Note that the IPCC is even more blasted for being too conservative.
Yes but the criticisms of the IPCC being too conservative are comming from people who have a vested interest in the laws being passed to limit advancing economy in the name of AGW.
I am affraid not. Most criticism are coming from citizens of fianciancialy rich countries. People where the econonics are not there, do not education nor communication access to learn about Global Warming. There are unfortunatly the victims.
You just proved my point. The people saying AGW estimates are too conservative are from the US, Canada, England, France etc All first world countries. In order to prevent countries like China, India, etc from becomming economic and industrial super powers they want to enforce global policy which will set these countries back a great deal while they spend time and money developing systems to adhere to the laws passed by the rich countries that can already afford to implement them.
IPCC is pushing a political agenda to keep the rich people rich, how did you not see that?
http://wmbriggs.c...ey-puck/
scientifics, researchers, pushing a political agenda at the expense of science and inventing global warming to be able to do so? Are you serious? I would have never known.
Now this is where I can perhaps educate you as to my reasons for full disbelief in AGW.
A lot of the scientists "employed" by the IPCC submit their papers and they are reviewed by a panel of senior scientists within the hallowed halls of the IPCC. After that is done the senior scientists write their review of the material they've decided to include.
Then the political forces get their hands on the IPCC paper and review it where they accept or reject the findings within and then the review is either rewritten or published.
Now the majority of the scientists on the review board and the scientists actually writing the papers are rather furious with the IPCC because their methods have shown a very heavy political bias. There's a lot of info out there about the particulars including the petition of 37000 scientitsts who signed up trying to have the IPCC reviewed by an intergovernmental panel for "intellectual mistreatment."
You can see that the science on AGW is very lackluster in most cases.
My point is that there si not enough research to make the suppositions that are being made, let alone to push those "guesses" into legislation that can effectively harm people.