Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: " Climate change and trace gases",Hansen et al. 2007

5 views
Skip to first unread message

xnic...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 4:08:39 AM6/19/07
to
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
Published online 18 May 2007

Hansen et al. 2007

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.

Abstract:

Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate is remarkably
sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This
allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. One
feedback, the "albedo flip" property of water substance, provides a
powerful trigger mechanism. A climate forcing that "flips" the albedo
of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm. Ice
sheet and ocean inertia provides only moderate delay to ice sheet
disintegration and a burst of added global warming. Recent greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic
climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers
for humans and other creatures. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest
human-made climate forcing, but other trace constituents are
important. Only intense simultaneous efforts to slow CO2 emissions and
reduce non-CO2 forcings can keep climate within or near the range of
the past million years. The most important of the non-CO2 forcings is
methane (CH4), as it causes the 2nd largest human-made GHG climate
forcing and is the principal cause of increased tropospheric ozone
(O3), which is the 3rd largest GHG forcing. Nitrous oxide (N2O) should
also be a focus of climate mitigation efforts. Black carbon ("black
soot") has a high global warming potential (~2000, 500, and 200 for
20, 100 and 500 years, respectively) and deserves greater attention.
Some forcings are especially effective at high latitudes, so concerted
efforts to reduce their emissions could still "save the Arctic", while
also having major benefits for human health, agricultural
productivity, and the global environment.

downloadable from: -

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

matt_sykes

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 5:34:30 AM6/19/07
to

Ah, that Royal Society.

The one Thatcher paid money to to condemn CO2 in order to destroy the
National Union of Miners.

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 11:26:50 AM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
> Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
> doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
> Published online 18 May 2007
>
> Hansen et al. 2007
>
> Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
> Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
> Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>

Interesting quote:
"About one-quarter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions will stay in
the air 'forever', i.e. more than 500 years. This carbon
cycle fact is well established (Archer 2005). However,
implications of this fact have not penetrated the
consciousness of the public and policy makers. We take 500
years as a practical definition of forever because it is
long enough for large responses from both the ocean and
ice sheets. Resulting climate changes would be, from
humanity's perspective, irreversible."

In other words, today's fossil fools will leave trail
of damage lasting more than 20 generations. I can't
remember the exact quote, but Buddha did teach that
the evil men do outlasts the good.

Tunderbar

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 11:31:17 AM6/19/07
to

The assumption in this paper is that elevated CO2 levels causes global
warming. How about posting the paper that finds that elevated co2
levels cause global warming? This is a house of cards contingent on
the unproven concept of co2 dring climate.

Message has been deleted

Server 13

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 11:36:29 AM6/19/07
to

"matt_sykes" <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182245670.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

You left off your cite.


Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 11:37:48 AM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 2:34 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]

> Ah, that Royal Society.
>
> The one Thatcher paid money to to condemn CO2 in order
> to destroy the National Union of Miners.

A very very unlikely story, since the Royal Society
published the CO2 greenhouse gas theory several times
before Maggie Thatcher was born in 1925. The theory
predates her by more than a century.

Tunderbar

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 11:40:28 AM6/19/07
to
> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know what elevated co2 levels will do? It will allow more plant
growth. That is it.

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 11:43:36 AM6/19/07
to

It's very clear that you haven't read the paper, Dunderbar.

matt_sykes

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:16:53 PM6/19/07
to

Its odd though how no one noticed this theory untill Thatcher started
the IPCC.

Tunderbar

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:19:32 PM6/19/07
to
> It's very clear that you haven't read the paper, Dunderbar.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest human-made climate forcing,..."

That is an assumption, supposedly based on some real science. Show me
the science that finds that CO2 is a "climate forcing". It does not
exist.

matt_sykes

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:19:55 PM6/19/07
to
> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thats an interesting deffinition of 'forever'. Sufficient to state
'the Roman Empire lasted forever'. Which is clearly also a load of
crap.

Tunderbar

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:23:39 PM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 10:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
> > Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
> > doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
> > Published online 18 May 2007
>
> > Hansen et al. 2007
>
> > Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
> > Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
> > Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>
> Interesting quote:
> "About one-quarter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions will stay in
> the air 'forever', i.e. more than 500 years. This carbon

You mean this co2 will never be used by plants? Ever? You know, 500
years is not for ever. And besides, CO2 has nothing to do with global
warming except that it increases after the temps go up.

> cycle fact is well established (Archer 2005). However,
> implications of this fact have not penetrated the
> consciousness of the public and policy makers. We take 500
> years as a practical definition of forever because it is
> long enough for large responses from both the ocean and
> ice sheets. Resulting climate changes would be, from
> humanity's perspective, irreversible."
>
> In other words, today's fossil fools will leave trail
> of damage lasting more than 20 generations. I can't
> remember the exact quote, but Buddha did teach that
> the evil men do outlasts the good.
>
>
>
> > downloadable from: -
>

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:31:23 PM6/19/07
to

That repeated non-question of your's has been answered
too many times. You ignored all those answers, Tell
this newsgroup, why would you read the answer if it
were given to you this time? Also, why do you need the
answer given to you, when you can find it in a couple
of minutes?


Server 13

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:38:52 PM6/19/07
to

"matt_sykes" <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182269813.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Now you have two statements to prove. Better get busy.


Server 13

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:39:47 PM6/19/07
to

"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182267628....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

As usual, Tundy post = pathetic bullshit.


Server 13

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:40:46 PM6/19/07
to

"matt_sykes" <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182269995.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Reading comprehension problem? Or just stupid?


Server 13

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:42:02 PM6/19/07
to

"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182270219.2...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 19, 10:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
>> > Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
>> > doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
>> > Published online 18 May 2007
>>
>> > Hansen et al. 2007
>>
>> > Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
>> > Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
>> > Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>>
>> Interesting quote:
>> "About one-quarter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions will stay in
>> the air 'forever', i.e. more than 500 years. This carbon
>
> You mean this co2 will never be used by plants? Ever? You know, 500
> years is not for ever. And besides, CO2 has nothing to do with global
> warming except that it increases after the temps go up.

As usual, Tundy post = pathetic bullshit.


Server 13

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 12:43:06 PM6/19/07
to

"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182269972.0...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

As usual, Tundy post = pathetic bullshit.


xnic...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 3:16:54 PM6/19/07
to

Given the high proportion of paid hacks, professional psychos and
spooks on usenet, I wasn't expecting any deep analysis of the paper,
but most of you don't even appear to have read it before engaging in
the usual Pavlovian knee-jerk absuse.

But there are a few serious points to be made: -

The 'Greenhouse effect' wasn't some obscure theory that Thatcher
resuscitated, it was well known long before she came to power.
It also wasn't an issue in either of the big miners' strikes.

The Tories were too busy going on about the miners 'holding the
country to ransom' and the ballot question.
The 80's strike was broken using imported coal, coal from strike-
breaking areas like Nottingham and because North Sea Oil and Gas had
come on stream.
Once they closed the pits, there was no 'dash for renewable energy',
but for gas-fired power stations.
Coal use continues, the only difference being that it's now imported
from Australia and South Africa.
So, whatever her words, Thatcher's actions did not lead to a reduction
in fossil fuel use.

As to Hansen, the punchline comes at the end of the paper with his
comments on GCHG extraction and carbon sequestration.
I think he may be "clutching at straws", but if it's a serious
proposal I'd want to see detailed proposals.
Given what's happened with bioethanol, I wonder what, say producing
vastly increased acreages of Switchgrass would mean for food
production in the US, let alone what it would mean for China and India
in the event of crop failures there. There is also as yet, no secure
and tested method of carbon sequestration.

Suprised nobody picked up on that one.
Well, actually, I'm not.

claudi...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 3:47:24 PM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
> Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
> doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
> Published online 18 May 2007
>
> Hansen et al. 2007
>
> Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
> Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
> Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>
> Abstract:
>
> Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate is remarkably
> sensitive to global forcings.

Bullshit. There is no evidence that indicates the earth is unstable.
In fact exactly the opposite is the case.

> Positive feedbacks predominate.

More BS. Negative feedbacks predominate.

> This
> allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states.

The evidence indicates that climate change is extremely rare.

> One
> feedback, the "albedo flip" property of water substance, provides a
> powerful trigger mechanism.

Bullshit. Water provide a negative feedback in that clouds of H20
reflect insolation.


> A climate forcing that "flips" the albedo
> of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm.

Speculative nonsense. There is no evidence of such.

> Ice
> sheet and ocean inertia provides only moderate delay to ice sheet
> disintegration and a burst of added global warming.

This is plainly an idiotic comment completely unsupportable by any
physical evidence.

> Recent greenhouse
> gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic
> climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers
> for humans and other creatures.

This is pure scaremongering. Pure propaganda.

> Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest
> human-made climate forcing,

There is zero evidence that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric
temperatures. Moreover the main human-made climate forcing is H20.

zzbu...@netscape.net

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 3:47:35 PM6/19/07
to

Well, shit. Only morons like Buddha or a philosophic society
would compare atmoshperic CO2 to ocean sulfation from
shipping, so it makes no difference either way to the 500 year
outlook,
Since they're idiots either way, and will all be replaced
by robots in 20 years.

>
>
>
> > downloadable from: -
>
> >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf- Hide quoted text -

Tom

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 4:39:39 PM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 11:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
> > Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
> > doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
> > Published online 18 May 2007
>
> > Hansen et al. 2007
>
> > Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
> > Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
> > Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>
> Interesting quote:
> "About one-quarter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions will stay in
> the air 'forever', i.e. more than 500 years. This carbon
> cycle fact is well established (Archer 2005). However,
> implications of this fact have not penetrated the
> consciousness of the public and policy makers. We take 500
> years as a practical definition of forever because it is
> long enough for large responses from both the ocean and
> ice sheets. Resulting climate changes would be, from
> humanity's perspective, irreversible."
>
> In other words, today's fossil fools will leave trail
> of damage lasting more than 20 generations.

I don't think that the message that the authors are trying to send
us. They
say:

"We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost
surely requires a
means of extracting GHGs from the air."

(note that the paragraph starting with this sentence is not
comprehensive in listing the currently proposed mitigation strategies)

It's 500 years without extraction from the air. But I think
extraction is feasible. I don't know much about it, but Lovelock
described some proposed technologies in "Revenge of Gaia" and he
expressed the opinion that the US will go that route when the US
finally experience AGW "policy flip".

> I can't
> remember the exact quote, but Buddha did teach that
> the evil men do outlasts the good.
>
>
>
> > downloadable from: -
>

Tom

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 4:42:55 PM6/19/07
to
> > >http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thats an interesting deffinition of 'forever'. Sufficient to state
> 'the Roman Empire lasted forever'. Which is clearly also a load of
> crap.- Hide quoted text -

You are nitpicking.

zzbu...@netscape.net

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 6:00:48 PM6/19/07
to

But the Royal Society also published Newton's theory of kinetics
before either Thacher or the miners were born.
That's still doesn't give any British wanks any more
CO2 credibility than London Fog.

alanm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 8:30:19 PM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:

Let's check his paper with actual data: He says he expects the
earth to warm about 3 C with a doubling of CO2. Since changes in
temperature are proportional to the natural log of the amount of CO2
in the atmoshere, the rate of current warming to final warming should
be roughly proportional to the log of

380/280 versus the log of 560/280, or
0.305 to 0.693.

The earth should have warmed at least .305/.693 * 3 C, or 1.32 C over
the 20th century. Needless to say, Hansen overestimated the amount
by a factor of two or more.


He also says temperature sensitivity should be roughly 3/4 C per watt
increase.
With a 4 watt increase after a doubling of CO2, he multiplied 3/4 by
4, and that's where he got the 3 C increase.

We currently receive a flux of 240 watts. The greenhouse effect
increases the net flux to an effective 390 watts. Without the current
greenhouse effect, but with
clouds, a fantasy earth would have a temperature of 254 K. That
increase of
(390 -240) = 150 watts due to CURRENT global warming increases
temperature by 33 K to 287 K. The CURRENT average sensitivity is
33/150 = 0.22 K per watt increase in flux. There's no reason that
sensitivity should INCREASE with an additional flux; more likely it
would DECREASE. Using the above 0.22 figure, which probably
OVERESTIMATES the temperature effect, a doubling of CO2 would increase
temperatures by 0.22 * 4 = 0.88 C. Since temperatures have already
increased by 0.6 C over the last century, that would imply that
temperatures would increase only 0.28 additional degrees with a
doubling of CO2.
- A. McIntire

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 8:55:23 PM6/19/07
to

-- Maggie Thatcher started the IPCC?!??

-- You know how much attention the
greenhouse gas theory got in 1824!?!!

Two impossible things in only one sentence!
You got any proof for either one of these
outrageous claims, Matt, or are you simply
just delusional?

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 9:02:14 PM6/19/07
to

Read the paper before you jump into your standard spiel.

Also see:
Hansen, J. et al. 2005b Earth's energy imbalance: confirmation and
implications. Science 308, 1431-1435. (doi:10.1126/science.1110252)

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 19, 2007, 9:08:15 PM6/19/07
to
On Jun 19, 12:47 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
> > Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
> > doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
> > Published online 18 May 2007
>
> > Hansen et al. 2007
>
> > Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
> > Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
> > Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>
> > Abstract:
>
> > Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate is remarkably
> > sensitive to global forcings.
>
> Bullshit. There is no evidence that indicates the earth is unstable.
> In fact exactly the opposite is the case.
>
> > Positive feedbacks predominate.
>
> More BS. Negative feedbacks predominate.

Why don't you read the paper and check its
references first, and then comment on it?
That way, Mr. Dinky McGinn, you won't look
like a total fool.


alanm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 12:21:32 AM6/20/07
to
On Jun 19, 6:02 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> Read the paper before you jump into your standard spiel.
>
(cut)
I did. Where do you think I got that ridiculous 3/4 C per watt
figure?
- A. McIntire

Peter Muehlbauer

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 3:41:15 AM6/20/07
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote

> On Jun 19, 9:16 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 19 Jun, 17:37, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 2:34 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [ . . . ]
> >
> > > > Ah, that Royal Society.
> >
> > > > The one Thatcher paid money to to condemn CO2 in order
> > > > to destroy the National Union of Miners.
> >
> > > A very very unlikely story, since the Royal Society
> > > published the CO2 greenhouse gas theory several times
> > > before Maggie Thatcher was born in 1925. The theory
> > > predates her by more than a century.
> >
> > Its odd though how no one noticed this theory
> > untill Thatcher started the IPCC.
>
> -- Maggie Thatcher started the IPCC?!??

She was the driving force, beneath James Hanson, to establish the IPCC.

Roger Coppock

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 11:21:44 AM6/20/07
to
On Jun 20, 12:41 am, "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@frankenexpress.de>
wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote
[ . . . ]

> > -- Maggie Thatcher started the IPCC?!??
>
> She was the driving force, beneath James Hanson,
> to establish the IPCC.

If I were going to accuse James Hanson and
Maggie Thatcher of having sexual relations,
I'd at least offer one citation.

Lloyd

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 2:04:24 PM6/20/07
to
On Jun 19, 8:30 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Huh? Says who?

> the rate of current warming to final warming should
> be roughly proportional to the log of
>
> 380/280 versus the log of 560/280, or
> 0.305 to 0.693.
>
> The earth should have warmed at least .305/.693 * 3 C, or 1.32 C over
> the 20th century. Needless to say, Hansen overestimated the amount
> by a factor of two or more.

Because there are other factors, both positive and negative. Your
simplistic analysis is like taking interest rates and trying to match
them to the price of GM stock for the past 20 years.

Rich

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 2:14:33 PM6/20/07
to
Lloyd wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:30 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>

[...]

>>> http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
>> Let's check his paper with actual data: He says he expects the
>> earth to warm about 3 C with a doubling of CO2. Since changes in
>> temperature are proportional to the natural log of the amount of CO2
>> in the atmoshere,
>
> Huh? Says who?

Among others, the IPCC.

Look up band saturation if you want to know more.

Cheers,

Rich

xnic...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 2:41:34 PM6/20/07
to
On 20 Jun, 01:30, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> There's no reason that
> sensitivity should INCREASE with an additional flux; more likely it
> would DECREASE.

Why?


Tunderbar

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 3:17:10 PM6/20/07
to
> of minutes?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It has not been answered here or anywhere else. there is NO CREDIBLE
SCIENCE that specfically finds that elevated CO2 levles xause elevated
temperatures. PERIOD. End of story.

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 3:57:10 PM6/20/07
to
On Jun 19, 10:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 1:08 am, xnich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
> > Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925-1954
> > doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
> > Published online 18 May 2007
>
> > Hansen et al. 2007
>
> > Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M.
> > Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal.
> > Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
>
> Interesting quote:
> "About one-quarter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions will stay in
> the air 'forever', i.e. more than 500 years. This carbon
> cycle fact is well established (Archer 2005). However,
> implications of this fact have not penetrated the
> consciousness of the public and policy makers. We take 500
> years as a practical definition of forever because it is
> long enough for large responses from both the ocean and
> ice sheets. Resulting climate changes would be, from
> humanity's perspective, irreversible."
>

How do these twits get away with these lies. Obviously no peer review
or scientific review in this field. The secular world apart from this
religion, should document these lies for later application of proper
litigation.

7.8 billion tons of CO2 amount to 1ppm in the atmosphere.
The current human input is about 30 billion tons per year.
The current noted increase is about 13 or 14 billion tons per yr.

This means that half of each years emissions is absorbed in the
environment, at least.

A natural increase in CO2 began before industrialization. This is also
an important factor in determining the effect of the elimination of
particular input and the actual effect on rising concentrations.

So the elimination of any contribution will only affect rising
concentrations by half of this value.
If US contributions were 1/4 of total.
Complete elimination of this contribution would only reduce increasing
concentrations by 1/8.

1/4 of all annual human emssions of CO2 is from the actual burning of
the vegetation in the very rare tropical jungles that are the
principle source of conversion of CO2 to oxygen. (much greater than
50% of oxygen conversion is done by tropical forest which cover only
2% of the surface of the earth)

It means that there is no way this statement is valid. There is no
means to differentiate anthropogenic CO2 from the 440 billion tons
that is converted by plants each year or the 200 billion tons that is
exchanged with the ocean. There is also much more than this of natural
CO2 in the cycles.

Even simple figuring of ocean exchange proves this an absolute lie,
and from the source that it emanates with the intent of climate
scaremongering, a serious crime.

At the very least it is a scaremongering statement that is not based
in any actual scientific fundamentals.

KDeatherage
The AGW Bunnies,,,, beating the AGW drum in the face of valid
science,,,,
they keep going,,,,,and going,,,,,

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 5:19:30 PM6/20/07
to
On Jun 20, 2:57 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
l> Even simple figuring of ocean exchange proves this an absolute lie,
l> and from the source that it emanates with the intent of climate
l> scaremongering, a serious crime.

Deliberate fraud and intent to commit fraud can be legally defined
also by OMMISSION of pertinent data. Ommision or incomplete
presentation of facts from these scientists can very well be used as
proof of their culpability in this very serious crime against society.

At every point in the presented science of CO2 concentrations, false
pictures are developed and promoted to influence the decisions to
incapacitate economic function by defining normal use of energy as a
criminal act, by incomplete and false rendition of facts.

Peter Muehlbauer

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 5:48:41 PM6/20/07
to

"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote

"Thatcher gab neben dem US-Klimaforscher James Hansen auch entscheidende
Anstöße für die Gründung des zwischenstaatlichen Klimarates IPCC."

http://www.gaertner-online.de/index/veranstaltungen.html

Next time please use Google... <argh>

kdt...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2007, 8:12:23 PM6/20/07
to
On Jun 20, 1:14 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 8:30 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
>
> [...]
>
> >>>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
> >> Let's check his paper with actual data: He says he expects the
> >> earth to warm about 3 C with a doubling of CO2. Since changes in
> >> temperature are proportional to the natural log of the amount of CO2
> >> in the atmoshere,
>
Old Hansen's paper here ignores very important studies that contradict
many of his basic statements.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf
This is a specific study that shows the CO2 follows the temperature by
about 900yrs.

His statement. Although he does cover his ass with some qualifiying
statements.
""Therefore,we can only say with certainty that the temperature and
gas changes are nearly synchronous."""

If this statement were true it only means that a part of the current
CO2 increase must be attributed to the present natural warming trend,
which is just a return to temperatures of the MWP.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

On this graph for 18000 yrs, about 12000yrs ago a warming trend
occured of 5C. None of the steepness in this rise of temperature is
unusual. This warming was about 3C over 1000yrs before the CO2 began
to rise. One could try to say that the CO2 is affecting temperature
after it begins to rise also, but any quantification one could squeeze
out of this is very minute and false.

The temperature begins it's fall as CO2 is still rising. No validation
of Hansens claim of GTG forcing can be shown from this graph or any of
the scientific evidence from the ice cores.

The important thing about the delay of the CO2, is that it means that
most of the temperature increase occurs without any possible effect of
a rise in CO2.

This means that in the graphed temperatures, there must be evidence of
effect on the temperature increases or steeper graph as the CO2 rises
which would give the quantification of the effect of the CO2. This
does not exist either.

The points of temperature fall and CO2 concentrations do not show any
possible effect of the CO2.

This paper from the council for the superstition (Hansen@NASA) is
junk science. It uses scientific data fraudulently. It ignores any
basic scientific criticism or input of valid scientific studies as it
seeks only to promote the false conclusion, which is entirely pre-
decided upon by the authors, with it's distorted interpretation of
data.

KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an
air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney.

alanm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2007, 10:20:41 AM6/23/07
to

Because luminosity is proportional to the 4th power of temperature.
Inversely,
Temperature is proportional to the 1/4 power of luminosity.
A 1% increase of wattage flux would result in a (1.01)^0.25 =
0.25% increase in temperature.

A 20% increase of wattage flux would result in a (1.2)^0.25 = 4.66%
increase in temperature. Notice that the ratios gradually DECREASE.

0.25%/1% = 0.25

4.66%/20% = 0.233

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

Notice Hansen's estimate of a 3/4 K increase per watt is a direct
contraditction of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


- A. McIntire

Benj

unread,
Jun 23, 2007, 11:21:58 AM6/23/07
to

Lloyd wrote:

> Because there are other factors, both positive and negative. Your
> simplistic analysis is like taking interest rates and trying to match
> them to the price of GM stock for the past 20 years.

No, No, you don't get it. When two quantities vary in the same way it
PROVES that one causes the other! (especially when there is political
motivation for such a conclusion). I saw it on TV it MUST be true!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages