No Global Warming Say 15,000 Scientists
mcr...@northernnet.com
---
Many scientists dispute global warming
Adam Markham stated in a June 6 pro-con article on global
warming that a ``large number of scientists believe that, while
sun spots and other natural phenomena may play a role, the
warming trend is due mainly to the emission of heat-trapping
`greenhouse' gases released by the burning of fossil fuel.''
He forgets to mention there has been a cooling trend the last
18 years or so. Here's another very large number: As of
April 21, 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced
academic degrees, have signed the following petition:
``We urge the United States government to reject the global
warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in
December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The
proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advancement of science and
technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse
gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is
substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''
The Kyoto agreement is a political document, NOT scientific.
John Lukan
Duluth,MN
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
William Connolley
>The following is a letter to the editor from the Duluth News Tribune 7/12/98
>release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse
>gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
>catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
>disruption of the Earth's climate.
This is not being claimed, and is therefore a nullity.
> Moreover, there is
>substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
>carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
>natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''
Says nothing about warming.
So, in fact, your 15,000 petitioners have *not* signed up to "no global warming".
- William
---
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
Harold
Connolley) wrote:
>In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, mcr...@northernnet.com writes:
>>The following is a letter to the editor from the Duluth News Tribune 7/12/98
>>Many scientists dispute global warming
>>``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>>release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse
>>gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
>>catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
>>disruption of the Earth's climate.
>
>This is not being claimed, and is therefore a nullity.
That is an interesting statement. I presume then that you are saying
that VP Gore's statement of yesterday(?) is not really a claim, or was
not really a catastrophe?
Or maybe you did not hear about it, because that is exactly the claim
in the US, and I have seen it made in this newsgroup.
>> Moreover, there is
>>substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric
>>carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
>>natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''
>
>Says nothing about warming.
>
>So, in fact, your 15,000 petitioners have *not* signed up to "no global warming".
No. They signed up to say that evidence is lacking. I agree.
Regards, Harold
---
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
being honest."
- Dr. Steven Schneider, Our Fragile Earth", Discover,
Oct. 1987. pg 47
William Connolley
>w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) wrote:
>>In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, mcr...@northernnet.com writes:
>>>Many scientists dispute global warming
>>>``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>>>catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...
>>
>>This is not being claimed, and is therefore a nullity.
> ...that is exactly the claim in the US, and I have seen it made in this newsgroup.
Depends what you mean by "catastrophic", doesn't it? A few droughts and hurricances
is hardly globally catastrophic. Catastrophic could mean a runaway greenhouse
effect, which essentially noone believes in. What exactly do they mean by
"catastrophic" in this case?
>They signed up to say that evidence is lacking. I agree.
Evidence *of what*? You have to say clearly what you mean. If you doubt that the
balance of evidence suggests a discernable human impact on climate, I think
you're wrong. If you doubt that we have 100% proof of human impact, I think you're
right but asking the wrong questions.
Harold
Connolley) wrote:
>In article 4520...@nntp.st.usm.edu, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) writes:
>>w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) wrote:
>>>In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, mcr...@northernnet.com writes:
>>>>Many scientists dispute global warming
>>>>``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>>>>release of carbon dioxide ... will, in the foreseeable future, cause
>>>>catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...
>>>
>>>This is not being claimed, and is therefore a nullity.
>
>> ...that is exactly the claim in the US, and I have seen it made in this newsgroup.
>
>Depends what you mean by "catastrophic", doesn't it? A few droughts and hurricances
>is hardly globally catastrophic. Catastrophic could mean a runaway greenhouse
>effect, which essentially noone believes in. What exactly do they mean by
>"catastrophic" in this case?
I assume you saw the qualifier "in the US", did you not? Good, then I
would refer you to the statements of Gore and Clinton, particularly
over the last few weeks of drought.
On an international level, I would guess this quote qualifies,
"Yesterday's rainstorm was just one of the disastrous effects of
global warming, a visiting international expert said. The bird flu,
red tide and mad cow disease are also symptoms of the greenhouse
effect, according to Shen Sin-yan, director of the Global Warming
International Centre in the US. Dr Shen is in Hong Kong for the 9th
Global Warming International Conference and Expo." That quote may be
found in "Rainstorm a side-effect of global warming," the Hong Kong
Standard, June 10, 1998.
The Internet is really interesting, don't you think?
>>They signed up to say that evidence is lacking. I agree.
>
>Evidence *of what*? You have to say clearly what you mean. If you doubt that the
>balance of evidence suggests a discernable human impact on climate, I think
>you're wrong. If you doubt that we have 100% proof of human impact, I think you're
>right but asking the wrong questions.
I know that the satellite data do not show global warming, and these
are the most comprehensive and most critically examined data we have
in our possession.
Regards, Harold
-------
"We looked at a thousand stations in the United States that
came from very small towns averaging no more than 5800 people.
We looked at the temperature patterns over this century and
found that most of the United States has cooled this century,
not warmed."
Dr. Robert Balling, Univ. of Arizona, 1990
William Connolley
>On 16 Jul 98 08:08:41 GMT, (WilliamConnolley) wrote:
>4520...@nntp.st.usm.edu, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) writes:
>>>(William Connolley) wrote:
>>>>In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, mcr...@northernnet.com writes:
>>>>>Many scientists dispute global warming
>>>**release of carbon dioxide ... will, in the foreseeable future, cause
>>>**catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...
>>>>This is not being claimed, and is therefore a nullity.
[Harold provides evidence that various people *have* claimed catastrophic effects...]
Hmmm. I seem to be on a losing streak here, so let me go back to what I *intended*
to say...
The petition, quoted above, purports to show that many scientists dispute global
warming. Yet, the statement above (marked with **'s) is *not* the
negative of the IPCC consensus position. It is a very much stronger statement.
I accept the IPCC consensus, yet I can agree with the **'s above (+). Therefore the
argument "many scientists dispute global warming, because they agree with **" is
false.
[(+) with various caveats, such as that they haven't really defined a number of
important terms, eg catastrophic and foreseeable].
>>>They signed up to say that evidence is lacking. I agree.
[lightly edited: (WMC)]
>>Evidence *of what*? If you doubt that (1) the
>>balance of evidence suggests a discernable human impact on climate, I think
>>you're wrong. If you doubt that (2) we have 100% proof of human impact, I think
>>you're right but asking the wrong questions.
>I know that the satellite data do not show global warming, and these
>are the most comprehensive and most critically examined data we have
>in our possession.
Well, first off, you haven't said whether you disagree with (1) or not.
If you are determined to concentrate on the satellite data, you are restricting
yourself to the last 20 years. Attempting to find a statistically significant
trend in a 20-year period is not reasonable. You are ignoring the 100+ years of
direct ground observations before then, and the 500+ years of proxy data from
tree rings etc before then, etc.
Satellite data are *not* the most comprehensive dataset - their time coverage is
far inferior to the sfc obs. Nor (I think...) are their actually more satellite
obs per day than ground obs (but I'm open to informed correction on that...).
When you say "most critically examined" you are dismissing the vast amount
of work that has gone into looking at the sfc obs. Again, you imply by "critically
examined" that the satellite data has passed thesed critisisms - it hasn't. There
are quite a few objections outstanding (see various other recent posts by others).
Just to make my position clear: I recognise that there is an incompatibility
between satellite (MSU2R) upper-troposphere and sfc temperature trends over the
last 20-odd years, but do not find this convincing evidence that there has been no
warming over that period, since the debate has not yet been settled over (putting
things in the crudest terms) which side is right.
Harold
Connolley) wrote:
I have seen no convincing evidence that human have had any impact on
climate. There may be some, but I am defining climate as global.
There is little doubt that parts of the world have suffered some
changes as a result of the presence of people.
>If you are determined to concentrate on the satellite data, you are restricting
>yourself to the last 20 years. Attempting to find a statistically significant
>trend in a 20-year period is not reasonable. You are ignoring the 100+ years of
>direct ground observations before then, and the 500+ years of proxy data from
>tree rings etc before then, etc.
I disagree. I think that the last twenty years is the most
significant, because most of the CO2 was released after 1940, and more
is being released every day.
Obviously, there would be no effect from the human released CO2 prior
to about that time. Any previous temperature changes would have to
have occurred due to a natural cause.
>Satellite data are *not* the most comprehensive dataset - their time coverage is
>far inferior to the sfc obs. Nor (I think...) are their actually more satellite
>obs per day than ground obs (but I'm open to informed correction on that...).
I think each satellite takes many thousand of observations per day,
but I do not know the exact number
>When you say "most critically examined" you are dismissing the vast amount
>of work that has gone into looking at the sfc obs. Again, you imply by "critically
>examined" that the satellite data has passed thesed critisisms - it hasn't. There
>are quite a few objections outstanding (see various other recent posts by others).
I have read many, but all have been answered, I believe. To quote
NASA, "The temperature measurements from space are verified by two
direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ
measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne
observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and
comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting
platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements
are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade
(0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements
of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time."
>Just to make my position clear: I recognise that there is an incompatibility
>between satellite (MSU2R) upper-troposphere and sfc temperature trends over the
>last 20-odd years, but do not find this convincing evidence that there has been no
>warming over that period, since the debate has not yet been settled over (putting
>things in the crudest terms) which side is right.
You said there are problems with satellite data, but did not note the
problems with surface data, including urban heating, coverage
primarily of a small part of the earth's surface, and so on.
I think that the scientific study of global warming should continue or
increase, possibly we will have definitive answers pretty soon. But
to commit to an economic domination by an unproven idea is absurd.
russell.martin
earlier stuff snipped
> >Satellite data are *not* the most comprehensive dataset - their time coverage is
> >far inferior to the sfc obs. Nor (I think...) are their actually more satellite
> >obs per day than ground obs (but I'm open to informed correction on that...).
>
> I think each satellite takes many thousand of observations per day,
> but I do not know the exact number
>
I don't recall the exact number, but you can pretty thoroughly fill
out a 2x2 degree lat-long grid twice a day, so that will give you an
order of magnitude (about 30,000 if my math is right).
rest snipped
Regards,
Russell Martin
William Connolley
>w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) wrote:
>>7816...@nntp.st.usm.edu, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) writes:
>>>On 16 Jul 98 08:08:41 GMT, (WilliamConnolley) wrote:
>>>4520...@nntp.st.usm.edu, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) writes:
>>>>>(William Connolley) wrote:
>>>>>>In article 1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com, mcr...@northernnet.com writes:
>>>>>>>Many scientists dispute global warming
>>>>>**``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>>>>>**release of carbon dioxide ... will, in the foreseeable future, cause
>>>>>**catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...
>>...the argument "many scientists dispute global warming, because they agree
>>with **" is false.
>>>>If you doubt that (1) the
>>>>balance of evidence suggests a discernable human impact on climate, I think
>>>>you're wrong. If you doubt that (2) we have 100% proof of human impact, I think
>>>>you're right but asking the wrong questions.
>>>I know that the satellite data do not show global warming, and these
>>>are the most comprehensive and most critically examined data we have
>>>in our possession.
>I have seen no convincing evidence that human have had any impact on climate.
1. This is argument by personal ignorance. Have you seen convincing
evidence that humans have *not* had any impact?
2. IPCC is not claiming *convincing* evidence, it is claiming *balance-of-evidence*.
>>If you are determined to concentrate on the satellite data, you are restricting
>>yourself to the last 20 years. Attempting to find a statistically significant
>>trend in a 20-year period is not reasonable. You are ignoring the 100+ years of
>>direct ground observations before then, and the 500+ years of proxy data from
>>tree rings etc before then, etc.
>I disagree. I think that the last twenty years is the most
>significant, because most of the CO2 was released after 1940
Well, 1940 was nearly 60 years ago now... ;-)
CO2 conc has been growing roughly exponentially for say the last 100 y.
Since radiative forcing from this is proportional (roughly) to the log of CO2 conc,
the forcing has been increasing roughly linearly for the last 100 y. There's
nothing so special about the last few years, except that the signal is (IMHO)
beginning to emerge from the noise.
>Obviously, there would be no effect from the human released CO2 prior
>to about that time.
?Don't understand you?
>>Satellite data are *not* the most comprehensive dataset - their time coverage is
>>far inferior to the sfc obs. Nor (I think...) are their actually more satellite
>>obs per day than ground obs (but I'm open to informed correction on that...).
>I think each satellite takes many thousand of observations per day,
>but I do not know the exact number
I think that there are about 20,000 land sfc obs per day, but again I don't have
the exact number.
*stop press*: I've just found http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/NWP/DA_Obsusage.html
which actually answers these questions... look for yourself, but I count:
20k land obs (synop)
3k ship
4k buoy
2k radiosondes
17k aircraft
45k soundings (tovs; is this the same as MSU?)
158k (!!!) scatt winds from ERS-1
(side note: I use netscape (3 or 4) and find that it renders these large tables
very slowly).
>>When you say "most critically examined" you are dismissing the vast amount
>>of work that has gone into looking at the sfc obs. Again, you imply by "critically
>>examined" that the satellite data has passed thesed critisisms - it hasn't. There
>>are quite a few objections outstanding (see various other recent posts by others).
>
>I have read many, but all have been answered, I believe. To quote
>NASA...
You're quoting NASA, who are paraphrasing Christy. But NASA are not acting
impartially in this. They are, essentially, one of the sides in the argument, not
an impartial referee.
>>Just to make my position clear: I recognise that there is an incompatibility
>>between satellite (MSU2R) upper-troposphere and sfc temperature trends over the
>>last 20-odd years, but do not find this convincing evidence that there has been no
>>warming over that period, since the debate has not yet been settled over (putting
>>things in the crudest terms) which side is right.
>
>You said there are problems with satellite data, but did not note the
>problems with surface data, including urban heating, coverage
>primarily of a small part of the earth's surface, and so on.
There are problems with the sfc data, I will admit. They can be overemphasised,
though. Urban heating does not affect most sites. Spatial coverage over land is
actually quite good, just about global, during the last 20 years. Ships and
aircraft cover quite a bit of the oceans. The far southern hemisphere is rather
sparsely covered, though :-(
>I think that the scientific study of global warming should continue or
>increase, possibly we will have definitive answers pretty soon.
As a researcher, I'm in favour of that ;-) More seriously, yes, I think that
we do need more research in almost all aspects, but that shouldn't stop us
making what conclusions we can, now.
As a side note (I think someone else has noted this) a recent Nature/Science has an
article claiming that the US ?Senate? is trying to pass a bill prohibiting
funding for work that does, or might, support or prepare for Kyoto. That could
potentially prevent all climate change studies, depending on interpretation.
I hope they back off.
Joshua Halpern
SNIP
: Obviously, there would be no effect from the human released CO2 prior
: to about that time. Any previous temperature changes would have to
: have occurred due to a natural cause.
I agree (more or less) with the first sentence, but disagree with
the second. In addition to greenhouse gas releases, another
significant way humans have effected global climate is by
clearing land for farms and cities. This basically tracks
population growth, and increased greatly starting in the
1800s.
josh halpern
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
on 23 Jul 98 17:50:08 GMT,
w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes in part:
>CO2 conc has been growing roughly exponentially for say the last 100 y.
>Since radiative forcing from this is proportional (roughly) to the log of CO2 conc,
>the forcing has been increasing roughly linearly for the last 100 y. There's
>nothing so special about the last few years, except that the signal is (IMHO)
>beginning to emerge from the noise.
This is not correct, the natural concentration was not zero.
James B. Shearer
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
on 23 Jul 98 17:50:08 GMT,
w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes in part:
>Since radiative forcing from this is proportional (roughly) to the log of CO2 conc,
>the forcing has been increasing roughly linearly for the last 100 y. There's
>nothing so special about the last few years, except that the signal is (IMHO)
>beginning to emerge from the noise.
This is not correct, the natural concentration was not zero.
James B. Shearer
Harold
Connolley) wrote:
>634...@nntp.st.usm.edu, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) writes:
>>w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) wrote:
[deleted]
>
>>I have seen no convincing evidence that human have had any impact on climate.
>
>1. This is argument by personal ignorance. Have you seen convincing
>evidence that humans have *not* had any impact?
You ask that someone show proof of a negative. I had thought you were
presenting yourself as some kind of scientist.
My mistake.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"Agricultural experts state that a tripling of the food supply
of the world will be necessary in the next 30 years or so, if
the 6 or 7 billion people who may be alive in the year 2000
are to be adequately fed. Theoretically such an increase might
be possible, but it is becoming increasingly clear that it is
totally impossible in practice."
----Paul Erlich, "The Population Bomb", 1968
Harold
>Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote:
>SNIP
>: Obviously, there would be no effect from the human released CO2 prior
>: to about that time. Any previous temperature changes would have to
>: have occurred due to a natural cause.
>
>I agree (more or less) with the first sentence, but disagree with
>the second. In addition to greenhouse gas releases, another
>significant way humans have effected global climate is by
>clearing land for farms and cities. This basically tracks
>population growth, and increased greatly starting in the
>1800s.
Clearing of land did increase until about 1910, but not since. There
have been clearings in tropical areas, but these have been offset by
increased forested areas in the northern hemisphere, especially the
old USSR. In the US, the amount of forested area has increased, but
only a few percents. Most of that is in the South and the East, from
abandoned farms due to increased agricultural productivity.
The biggest clearing problems now are in tropical areas. I don't know
what you think you can do about that, except shot the poor peasants
trying to make a living.
Personally, I avoid buying products I know are from tropical forests.
Regards, Harold
----
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the
cooling trend . . . But they are almost unanimous in the view
that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for
the rest of the century." Newsweek, 1975.
Scientists concluded almost unanimously that global warming
is real and the time to act is now." Vice-President Al Gore,
1992.
Joshua Halpern
: On 23 Jul 1998 18:39:48 GMT, Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote:
: >SNIP
: >: Obviously, there would be no effect from the human released CO2 prior
: >: to about that time. Any previous temperature changes would have to
: >: have occurred due to a natural cause.
: >
: >I agree (more or less) with the first sentence, but disagree with
: >the second. In addition to greenhouse gas releases, another
: >significant way humans have effected global climate is by
: >clearing land for farms and cities. This basically tracks
: >population growth, and increased greatly starting in the
: >1800s.
: Clearing of land did increase until about 1910, but not since. There
: have been clearings in tropical areas, but these have been offset by
: increased forested areas in the northern hemisphere, especially the
: old USSR. In the US, the amount of forested area has increased, but
: only a few percents. Most of that is in the South and the East, from
: abandoned farms due to increased agricultural productivity.
What you said is true of the US, but I am not so sure that it
holds true world wide with a 1910 date. You also have to figure
in the annual burning of crop land in Brazil and Africa today,
but agreed that is a quibble. My point was that greenhouse gas
emissions increased rapidly at about the same time that the
effects of land clearing plateaued. The pioneer effect
provides an anthrogenic mechanism for affecting climate before
1940 and invalidates your original claim about this showing
that all observed increases were driven by non-anthrogenic
processes (I hesitate to use the word natural, cause at
root everything is natural, even PCBs and polymers).
In addition, according to Lean at least part of the pre-1900
increase was solar driven.
josh halpern
William Connolley
Oh dear. How true. Let me try and rescue myself...
The radiative forcing (as far as it is known...) from increases in CO2, methane, etc
can be seen in IPCC '90 chapter 2 figure 2.2.
For those without easy access to this, the figures are (from table 2.6):
1. 2.
1765-1900: 0.37 0.53
60: 0.79 1.17
70: 0.96 1.48
80: 1.20 1.91
90: 1.50 2.45
1. Change in radiative forcing from CO2 (W/M^2)
2. From CO2, CH4, CFCs etc... totalled
If you graph these out, you will see that radiative forcing from CO2 has actually
been increasing super-linearly.
Section 2.2.4 explains that the radiative forcing from a gas follows a
linear/squareroot/logarithmic relation to conc., if the gas has low/moderate/high
concentration. CO2 is in the logarithmic region.
Table 2.2 gives the CO2 forcing as 6.3*ln(C/C_0) (while C < 1000 ppmv),
source: Wigley, 1987, Climate Monitor and Hansen et al., 1988, JGR.
Joshua Halpern
: In article <35b77...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>,: >CO2 conc has been growing roughly exponentially for say the last 100 y.
: >Since radiative forcing from this is proportional (roughly) to the log of CO2 conc,
: >the forcing has been increasing roughly linearly for the last 100 y. There's
: >nothing so special about the last few years, except that the signal is (IMHO)
: >beginning to emerge from the noise.
: This is not correct, the natural concentration was not zero.
A rate of change (growth rate) can increase exponentially, even
if the quantity changing starts from a non-zero value.
josh halpern
Michael Tobis
: In article 6...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com, j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com writes:
: >In article <35b77...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>,
: > on 23 Jul 98 17:50:08 GMT,
: > w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes in part:
: >>CO2 conc has been growing roughly exponentially for say the last 100 y.
: > This is not correct, the natural concentration was not zero.
: Oh dear. How true. Let me try and rescue myself...
Excess above natural background has been increasing almost perfectly
exponentially for well over 100 years.
Shearer is quibbling. This may be useful in promoting precision but
is not especially interesting. I think we should save our breath for
substantive concerns.
mt
Steinn Sigurdsson
> j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote:
> : In article <35b77...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>,
> : on 23 Jul 98 17:50:08 GMT,
> : w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes in part:
> : >CO2 conc has been growing roughly exponentially for say the last 100 y.
> : >Since radiative forcing from this is proportional (roughly) to the log of CO2 conc,
> : >the forcing has been increasing roughly linearly for the last 100 y. There's
> : >nothing so special about the last few years, except that the signal is (IMHO)
> : >beginning to emerge from the noise.
>
> : This is not correct, the natural concentration was not zero.
> A rate of change (growth rate) can increase exponentially, even
> if the quantity changing starts from a non-zero value.
The strict question is whether the fractional rate
of change is approximately constant - the data shows
that it is approximately so, and the physical mechanism
is that economic activity has been increasing approximately
exponentially and the mean energy efficiency of the (global)
economy hasn't changed much.
This can of course change. Energy use may decouple from
economic growth; energy sources may become non-fossil fuel
sources or the economy may shrink.
And the reason people argue about it is because the
coupling between concentration and forcing is, fortunately,
weak. A fractional change of 100% in CO2 lead to
a fractional change in mean temperature of ~ 1%,
for current initial CO2 concentration.
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
on 24 Jul 1998 15:33:36 GMT,
Joshua Halpern <j...@IDT.NET> writes:
>j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com wrote:
>: In article <35b77...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>,
>: on 23 Jul 98 17:50:08 GMT,
>: w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes in part:
>: >Since radiative forcing from this is proportional (roughly) to the log of CO2 conc,
>: >the forcing has been increasing roughly linearly for the last 100 y. There's
>: >nothing so special about the last few years, except that the signal is (IMHO)
>: >beginning to emerge from the noise.
>
>
>A rate of change (growth rate) can increase exponentially, even
>if the quantity changing starts from a non-zero value.
But then the log does not increase linearly.
James B. Shearer
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
on 24 Jul 1998 16:32:39 GMT,
to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article 6...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com, j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com writes:
>: > on 23 Jul 98 17:50:08 GMT,
>: > w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley) writes in part:
>: >>CO2 conc has been growing roughly exponentially for say the last 100 y.
>
>
>
>Excess above natural background has been increasing almost perfectly
>exponentially for well over 100 years.
>
>Shearer is quibbling. This may be useful in promoting precision but
>is not especially interesting. I think we should save our breath for
>substantive concerns.
Tobis is wrong again.
Connolley made this statement as part of an argument that the
forcing from CO2 was roughly linear over the last 100 years (forcing
roughly proportional to log of concentration, concentration increasing
exponentially, therefore foring increasing linearly). This is wrong
as Conolley has conceded.
James B. Shearer
Michael Tobis
: Connolley made this statement as part of an argument that the
: forcing from CO2 was roughly linear over the last 100 years (forcing
: roughly proportional to log of concentration, concentration increasing
: exponentially, therefore foring increasing linearly). This is wrong
: as Conolley has conceded.
OK, I missed that. Forcing is increasing faster than linearly but will
eventually asymptote to linear, if the cumulative emissions remain
roughly exponential.
Interestingly, this very error is central to Patrick Michaels'
book arguing against global warming concerns.
mt
Andrew Russell
>> I think each satellite takes many thousand of observations per day,
>> but I do not know the exact number
>I don't recall the exact number, but you can pretty thoroughly fill
>out a 2x2 degree lat-long grid twice a day, so that will give you an
>order of magnitude (about 30,000 if my math is right).
Very good, Mr. Martin. It is about 30,000 a day.
"While traditional thermometers measure the temperature at a specific point
in the air, a microwave sounding unit on a satellite takes readings that
are average temperatures in a huge volume of the atmosphere. Each of the
more than 30,000 readings per day per satellite is an average temperature
for more than 75,000 cubic kilometers of air."
-from the MSU data site www.atmos.uah.edu/essl/msu/background.html-
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Joshua Halpern
: russell.martin wrote:
SNIP....
: "While traditional thermometers measure the temperature at a specific point
: in the air, a microwave sounding unit on a satellite takes readings that
: are average temperatures in a huge volume of the atmosphere. Each of the
: more than 30,000 readings per day per satellite is an average temperature
: for more than 75,000 cubic kilometers of air."
Microwave sounding units are used in many places besides satellites.
Could they be used to measure average temperature over a fairly
sizeable area. If so would there be any reason to do so in order
to improve surface temperature records?
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
> I've just found http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/NWP/DA_Obsusage.html
> which actually answers these questions... look for yourself, but I count:
> 20k land obs (synop)
> 3k ship
> 4k buoy
> 2k radiosondes
> 17k aircraft
> 45k soundings (tovs; is this the same as MSU?)
> 158k (!!!) scatt winds from ERS-1
Its been pointed out to me that no, tovs is not msu and that 45k seems on the
high side, as does the 158k for ERA-1 (scatt winds are oversampled, though).
Anyone wishing to resolve this should view the page for themselves.
For now, I'll content myself by asserting that there as "about as many" sfc
obs as there are satellite soundings.
- William
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
russell.martin
Good question. I don't know the answer, but I think there could be
a question of cost effectiveness, plus the fact that we couldn't
get just surface temperature. We would need to point it skyward to
avoid ground contamination, and then we'd get a weighted vertical
integral of the brightness temperature from the bottom rather
than the top (as the satellites give us), which is related to the
mean temperature of the layer over which the instrument is sensitive.
There are still some questions of interpreting the resulting
measurements, at least in my mind as I expounded upon at length in
another thread. However, some additional approaches to gathering
surface temperature, whether MSU or some other form of instrumentation,
are worth investigating, IMO.
Regards,
Russell Martin
Paul D. Farrar
>w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk wrote:
>> I've just found http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/NWP/DA_Obsusage.html
>> which actually answers these questions... look for yourself, but I count:
>> 20k land obs (synop)
>> 3k ship
>> 4k buoy
>> 2k radiosondes
>> 17k aircraft
>> 45k soundings (tovs; is this the same as MSU?)
>> 158k (!!!) scatt winds from ERS-1
150k AVHRR IR sea surface temperatures (see Mar '98 Bull. of Am. Met.
Soc.)
? SSM/I surface winds
>
>Its been pointed out to me that no, tovs is not msu and that 45k seems on the
MSU is used, along with HIRS/2 and SSU, to produce the the TOVS
products.
>high side, as does the 158k for ERA-1 (scatt winds are oversampled, though).
>Anyone wishing to resolve this should view the page for themselves.
>
>For now, I'll content myself by asserting that there as "about as many" sfc
>obs as there are satellite soundings.
>
>- William
...
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
Scott Nudds
: "While traditional thermometers measure the temperature at a specific point
: in the air, a microwave sounding unit on a satellite takes readings that
: are average temperatures in a huge volume of the atmosphere. Each of the
: more than 30,000 readings per day per satellite is an average temperature
: for more than 75,000 cubic kilometers of air."
Indeed. Do they measure surface temperature or the temperature at an
altitude of 5 miles?
You do realize there is a <very big> difference in temperature between
those two heights don't you John Boy?
Needs Limbaughtomy
on Thu, 23 Jul 1998
Harold.Brashears (Harold) wrote:
about: Re: No Global Warming Say 15,000 Scientis
>Connolley) wrote:
>
>>(Harold) writes:
>>>On 16 Jul 98 (WilliamConnolley) wrote:
>>>(Harold) writes:
>>>>>(William Connolley) wrote:
>>>>>>mcr...@northernnet.com writes:
>>>>>>>Many scientists dispute global warming
>>>>>**``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
>>>>>**release of carbon dioxide ... will, in the foreseeable future, cause
>>>>>**catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...
>>
>>>>>>This is not being claimed, and is therefore a nullity.
>>The petition, quoted above, purports to show that many scientists dispute global
>>warming. Yet, the statement above (marked with **'s) is *not* the
>>negative of the IPCC consensus position. It is a very much stronger statement.
>>I accept the IPCC consensus, yet I can agree with the **'s above (+). Therefore the
>>argument "many scientists dispute global warming, because they agree with **" is
>>false.
>>[(+) with various caveats, such as that they haven't really defined a number of
>>important terms, eg catastrophic and foreseeable].
>>
>>>>>They signed up to say that evidence is lacking. I agree.
>>
>>[lightly edited: (WMC)]
>>>>Evidence *of what*? If you doubt that (1) the
>>>>balance of evidence suggests a discernable human impact on climate, I think
>>>>you're wrong. If you doubt that (2) we have 100% proof of human impact, I think
>>>>you're right but asking the wrong questions.
>>
>>>I know that the satellite data do not show global warming, and these
>>>are the most comprehensive and most critically examined data we have
>>>in our possession.
>>
>>Well, first off, you haven't said whether you disagree with (1) or not.
>
>I have seen no convincing evidence that human have had any impact on
>climate. There may be some, but I am defining climate as global.
>There is little doubt that parts of the world have suffered some
>changes as a result of the presence of people.
Funny how the global warming argument is shifting.
Only a few years ago, it was "will there be", now it's
"is there?"
Irv115
>Date: Wed, Dec 16, 1998 04:06 EST
>Message-id: <3675c4e6....@news.psnw.com>
>
Much snipped!
>
>Funny how the global warming argument is shifting.
>Only a few years ago, it was "will there be", now it's
>"is there?"
>
evidence it's man-made", "It's due to solar variability", "It's a continuation
of the end of the glacial period", "We're still coming out of the little ice
age", and "It's all to the good, more CO2 will fertilize more food production."
From these we know that global warming is probably happening, it's probably
man-made, and the doubters don't really have a good argument against it. If
they did they would all use the same argument. Since they have scattered to
many we know that the doubters don't have a good dhook to hang their doubts on.
Irv
Irv @ Webster
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
My e-mail address will work better if you un-despam it.
That is, remove "don'tspam".
charliew
Irv115 wrote in message <19981216165945...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
Irv, your proof is by assertion. If you insist on taking the burden of
proof regarding the assumption that the current "global warming" is
substantially caused by human influence, your work is definitely "cut out"
for you. However, since you are so sure of yourself, I'm sure that you will
easily be able to prove your point with evidence. So ...
Irv115
news group in the last six months why global warming doesn't exist, or is
natural and/or is good several of them cannot be simultaneously be correct.
I'm saying, if there is a good reason why global warming is not a problem let's
have it, rather than this shoot in all directions & maybe we'll hit something
spree that has been going on.
So, if you don't agree fine, but please make up your minds why.
"charliew" <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>Date: Wed, Dec 16, 1998 22:24 EST
>Message-id: <759tj0$p0i$1...@news.hal-pc.org>
David Stephens
>
> I just reported the various often contradictory reasons I have read on this
> news group in the last six months why global warming doesn't exist, or is
> natural and/or is good several of them cannot be simultaneously be correct.
> I'm saying, if there is a good reason why global warming is not a problem let's
> have it, rather than this shoot in all directions & maybe we'll hit something
> spree that has been going on.
>
> So, if you don't agree fine, but please make up your minds why.
Global warming hit the populus hand in hand with politics. The basic
statement boils down to: "We have determined that there is global
warming and we should be given political authority to reduce your
standard of living to deal with it." If the scientific community
responsible for the global warming warning had not allied themselves
with a particular political faction, then perhaps their credibility
would not be so questionable.
If they are so good at predicting the future, then why didn't they
predict the backlash?
David S.
Irv115
climate than about the political and psychological climates. The U.S. Congress
is demonstrating that even politicians don't have a clue when it comes to
predicting the political climate.
Irv
David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> Asked:
>Date: Fri, Dec 18, 1998 11:31 EST
>Message-id: <367A83...@flash.net>