CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
Next: Scissors Experiment to prove whether lightwaves can be Doppler shifted Chapt 8 #126; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Big fella on 3 Jun 2010 01:41 CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society Letter from Norm Kalmanovitch to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: The concept of human caused global warming is entirely predicated on the assumption that the rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption will raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration to levels that will cause catastrophic warming of the Earth. The IPCC defined an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 650ppmv as the absolute maximum tolerable level beyond which catastrophic global warming will be a certainty. This was presented at the climate conference in Nairobi Kenya, in 2006 along with the prediction that at the current increasing rate of CO2 emissions, by 2100 the atmospheric CO2 will be well in excess of 1200ppmv (1248ppmv according to IPCC 2007 lead Author Andrew Weavers November 27, 2008 presentation to the University of Calgary). The global reference for atmospheric CO2 concentration is the Mauna Loa Observatory and this data is used by the IPCC as their only reference. The CO2 concentration data which can be downloaded directly from the site at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_gr_mlo.txt In the past ten years CO2 emissions have climbed from 24.75gt/year in 2000 to over 32gt/year by 2009, but the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration remained a virtually straight line, averaging 1.977ppmv/ year with the high value of 2.56ppmv/year occurring in 2003 and the low value of 1.55ppmv/year occurring in 2005. The official CO2 concentration for 2009 from Mona Loa Observatory is 387.35ppmv, and with the average rate of increase in concentration for the past decade of just 1.977ppmv/year, by year 2100 the concentration will only be 567.25ppmv, having increased by just 179.90ppmv over the next 91 years. This is less than half of what the IPCC predicted and more importantly it is below the 650ppmv maximum that the IPCC deemed safe. Essentially without even criticizing the faulty science behind AGW, it can be shown, based on the actual statements of the IPCC, that the world faces no threat from global warming as a result of increased CO2 emissions. If one were to bring physical science into the argument it is easily demonstrated that this 179.90ppmv increase in CO2 concentration will not increase the greenhouse effect by the 1.5307°C predicted by the forcing parameter of the climate models, but by something well under 0.2°C (because of the effect of this on an already near saturated wavelength band accessible to CO2). The fraudulent global warming alarmism becomes even more apparent when one looks forty years into the future to 2050. The optimum target declared by the IPCC is 450ppmv. At the current rate of increase of 1.977ppmv/year by 2050 the CO2 concentration will have only increased by 81.057ppmv bringing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 468.407ppmv; just 18.4ppmv over what the IPCC sees as an ideal target; yet this is occurring as CO2 emissions continue to increase unabated at ever increasing rates. If the atmospheric CO2 concentration data demonstrates that we face zero danger from human caused global warming for the next forty years; why is the IPCC still insisting that the world devastate its economy and starve the poor to prevent this danger? This brings the global temperature manipulations by the IPCC that were exposed in the climategate emails from the slap on the wrist conviction of not properly sharing data, to the realm of crimes against humanity because of all the damage caused by this fraud. In 1990 the IPCC properly demonstrated a temperature graph based on at least 18 temperature proxy studies. This graph showed the Medieval Warm period being substantially warmer than today which eliminated any alarmism from observed global temperature increases. The graph also showed the Little Ice Age which correlates with the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum demonstrating solar influence and not emissions influence as the cause of the observed warming. In 1998 immediately after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, a new temperature proxy appeared that was based on a small sampling of tree ring data statistically manipulated to eliminate both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and further manipulated with the addition of thermometer data to the proxy data to justify the proxy by having it fit the observed temperature data better than the previous proxies. This is referred to in the emails as Mikes Nature trick. In 2001 with the global temperature data starting to refute the AGW premise and the date for ratifying the Kyoto Accord fast approaching, the IPCC rejected the previous temperature graph based on 18 proxies and replaced it with the graph based on the single fraudulently contrived MBH98 temperature proxy. The original version of this graph presented in the 1998 paper only included temperature data up to 1995 because there was a drop in global temperature in 1996 and 1997 which would limit the impact of the graph. When the IPCC published this graph in the 2001 Fourth Assessment report they embellished the alarmism by extending the temperature data on the graph to include the temperature spike from the 1998 el Niño, but did not include the data for either 1999 or 2000 because 1999 was cooler than 1997, and this eliminated the alarmist impact of the 1998 temperature spike. The problem with the Hockey Stick Graph is that in matching the four global temperature representations it clearly showed the global cooling from 1942 to 1975. This is a big problem for the AGW hypothesis because the warming that occurred from 1910 to 1942 only represented a 14% increase in CO2 emissions; but the cooling that took place from 1942 to 1975 occurred as emissions increased by over 500%, completely refuting any claim of correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. This led to the out and out fraud of physically changing the actual temperature data at the Hadley CRU. The Hadley CRU data shown in the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report is clearly different than the same Hadley CRU data as well as all the other data representations including the Hockey Stick Graph shown in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report. The Royal Society has put themselves in a very difficult position, by failing to expose the faulty science behind AGW right from the onset in 1988 with the contrived scientifically baseless computer model projections of catastrophic global temperature increases related to CO2 emissions. The simple question is whether the Royal Society can extricate itself after being so entrenched in the global warming alarmists camp. PS: Over this last decade with the 29.3% increase in CO2 emissions, there has been zero global warming and in fact the Earth has been cooling since 2002. This reveals the true nature of the IPCC which still promotes global warming alarmism as the Earth continues to cool. Norm Kalmanovitch Calgary Alberta Canada
From: Desertphile on 3 Jun 2010 08:52 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Big fella <bestbefore(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society > Letter from Norm Kalmanovitch to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: > > The concept of human caused global warming is entirely predicated on > the assumption that the rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption will > raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration to levels that will cause > catastrophic warming of the Earth. It has already happened, as well as is happening, as well as will continue to happen. There is nothing we can do about it. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 09:05 The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect (from the AIP) http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
From: J. Clarke on 3 Jun 2010 09:07 On 6/3/2010 8:52 AM, Desertphile wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:06 -0700 (PDT), Big fella > <bestbefore(a)hushmail.com> wrote: > >> CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society >> Letter from Norm Kalmanovitch to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: >> >> The concept of human caused global warming is entirely predicated on >> the assumption that the rapid increase in fossil fuel consumption will >> raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration to levels that will cause >> catastrophic warming of the Earth. > > It has already happened, as well as is happening, as well as will > continue to happen. There is nothing we can do about it. You mean global thermonuclear war wouldn't end it? > >
From: oriel36 on 3 Jun 2010 09:48
On Jun 3, 2:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect (from the AIP) > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Lets see - 'The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect' "In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature" http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm I am sure Sam if your kind had been around 500 years ago they would have explained the seasonal temperature fluctuations through the presence and absence of leaves on trees and planets.As far as I am concerned,if you believe humanity has a global temperature dial in carbon dioxide,they might as well explain the seasons through the carbon dioxide and be done with it I have never seen so many people who are completely hostile to the idea that the orbital motion of the Earth is responsible for single polar daylight/darkness cycle and subsequently the seasons with the role of 'tilt' serving the description of a planet's climate as either equatorial or polar with the Earth's inclination determining largely equatorial conditions. For the interested few,the Earth is not a greenhouse and neither is it a machine and does not behave like either.As participants in the sci.met forums have come as close as possible to denying the orbital motion of the Earth and its seasonal/annual effects by ignoring the polar cycle as a window into the orbital behavior of the planet,our problems are far worse than global climate,it is the ability of people to reason properly and act like adults. |