Re: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT ON CLIMATE FORCINGS WHICH INCREASE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
warmcon
"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:04ltu6tff7kq0mda8...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:12:45 -0700 (PDT),
> "erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:20:54 -0600, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:11:48 -0700 (PDT), VOTE-FOR-CHRISTIE-IN-2012
>> > <fisherm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT ON CLIMATE FORCINGS
>> > > WHICH INCREASE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
>> >
>> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
>> > http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
>> > http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
>> > http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass
>> > http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/climate/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
>> > http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
>> > http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
>> > http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF
>> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
>> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
>> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
>> > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/629
>> > http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>> > http://www.jstor.org/pss/108724?cookieSet=1
>> > http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-43-11-1037
>> > http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
>> > http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-1-6-759
>> > http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4989/0498907.html
>> > http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
>> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
>> > http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISDG005543000001000164000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
>> > http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/index.html
>> > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2419.html
>> > http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
>> > http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html
>> > http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
>> > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf
>> > http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
>> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
>> > http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
>> > http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
>> > http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html
>> > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>> > http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>> > http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990
>> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml
>> > http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jmgregory0201.pdf
>> > http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
>> > http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf
>> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
>> > http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
>> > http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html
>> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005557.shtml
>> > http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/%7Eearpmf/papers/ForsterandGregory2006.pdf
>> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
>> > http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
>> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml
>> > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
>> > http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf
>> > http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
>> > http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_64/iss_1/33_1.shtml
>> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
>> >
>> > Oops! Stings, eh?
>
>> The denialists will just stick their fingers in their ears and chant
>> "na-na-na" until you go away.
>
> Yes, but the truth never goes away. They'll have to wait forever.
Did someone ask for the truth?
Leftist/Warmist Climate Models Go Cold
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global
warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence
during the 1990s.
But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading
profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and
total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong,
the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously
maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Carbon dioxide warming is too minor to be worth worrying about
David Evans
A scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was
once an alarmist, but is now a skeptic
Apr 7 2011
QUOTE:
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth
responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the
warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any
disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is
no exception, and now we can prove it.
QUOTE:
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ºC per
decade in 1990, to 0.20ºC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ºC per decade -
yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people
are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to
carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is
full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the
evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This
issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let's set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global
warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence
during the 1990s.
But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading
profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and
total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong,
the governments, and their tame climate "scientists", now outrageously
maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other
things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the
planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the
issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in
the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the
extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory
experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything.
Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the
oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air
in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?
Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The
alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the
planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is
also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model:
For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing
three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify
the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three - so two-thirds of their
projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only
one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That's the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings
spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in
the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that
is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many
thousands of them every year.
The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist
air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of
moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons
found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves
that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly
overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science.
In TRUE science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much
you are in love with the theory.
If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.
But official climate "science" ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence,
and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their
carbon dioxide theory - that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs
with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their
government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth
responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the
warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any
disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is
no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies
any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable.
It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in
1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved
much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30ºC per
decade in 1990, to 0.20ºC per decade in 2001, and now 0.15ºC per decade -
yet they have the gall to tell us "it's worse than expected." These people
are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to
carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.
One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air
conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of
hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from
decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.
Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge
is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by
volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close
to an artificial heating source.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the
whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year
was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why
does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not
mention the satellite results?
The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age
around 1680.
Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have
nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot
possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years
at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect
mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
Official climate "science", which is funded and directed entirely by
government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that
is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because
the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government
control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might
even lead to world government - how exciting for the political class!
Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up
shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government
climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015ºC. But their models
exaggerate 10-fold - in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a
mere 0.0015ºC cooler!
Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon
dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you've been had.
Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not
worth doing much about.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
warmcon
But not mine!