Great, for a small annual research grant (umm -teacher salary level) from below mentioned Centre's, I'll be glad to measure the diameter of randomly selected trees about 4' 4 1/8" above the ground.
Did you know this measurement is called 'breast-height diameter'? Despite my total lack of qualification I had to perform this measurement as part of the biogeography subject.
I did say, it was of 'interest' if anyone wanted a read;
Yes they are a lobby, not climate scientists.
There are papers on that site.
Al Gore has showed his alarmism to millions, No scientist there.
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri of the IPCC(Political Body) is an engineer and economist, no scientist there.
so the common person should ignore the preaching of those two, and really dig into the scientific (peer-reviewed) papers written by 'scientists' to really make up their minds of for or against; it becomes tricky of course when power hungry politicians are talking money; media is one-sided, and the consequences are dire.
I'll continue to read through those peer reviewed papers some more.. there's quite a few.
Too true..........I too will be trying to read some of the papers over time to get a better handle and understanding of this topic.
Peter, further to your 'While climate change is proving to be a *really* vast subject, it only takes a little critical thought or look at the peer reviews to see whether something true, reasonable, requires more investigation or just plain mis-information.' I concur........but remember that this fits both sides of the topic/myth.
I might have to start a research group aply title - ITYM Science and Research Institute (I'll take your money) which is really going to be a money laundering facility to facilitate the next scenario in 10 years time.
All in good fun........great to see we are all passionate on this forum......
pity the general population was not as sceptical of economists/merchant bankers/finalcial advisers/etc. (or whatever you call the people that lost all of our money and put us near recession...)
You have not produced one iota of evidence that current CO2 levels are not man made (its OK, no-one else has) and in light of the above...you've simply made a stronger case we (humans) are in for a rough ride.
You see this is where I have the problem in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff -- and I really want to know the answer one way or another. A correlation without a link is not enough for me. I'm really trying to keep an open mind on this, but being a former copper, I'm trained to be sceptical.
As I understand it, it's common ground the greenhouse gasses are composed of approx 95% water-vapour, 3.6% CO2 and 0.9% Methane. Is this right?
Proceeding on the assumption that is correct, I have also read of the total CO2emissions (man-made & natural), the human component accounts for 2.91% according to the US Department of Energy or 3.67% according to the IPCC’s AR4 -- the IPCC's own report. That means that of CO2's contribution to greenhouse warming 96% is down to natural emissions. Is this right?
Since 1998, the total atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 365ppm to 385ppm -- about a 5.5% rise. How can the the quite tiny human contribution of 3.67% of the total CO2 emissions account for a rise of about 5% in the total CO2 level over the 10 years?
Maybe I've been misled, maybe I'm just dumb, but this doesn't on the face of it appear to add up. Can anyone show me how it adds up?
If the governments get together and agree to reduce CO2 emissions by humans by say 30% over the next 20 years, this will bring the total contribution of humans to CO2 levels to about 2.5%. This in turn will reduce total atmospheric CO2 by no more than 1% (assuming the natural imput remains static).
Considering CO2 comprises only 3.6% of the total of Greenhouse gasses, we will therefore reduce total greenhouse gasses by about 0.02%.
How can this possibly make a difference? If there is a natural event (like a small increase in total volcanic activity) that increases total natural emissions of CO2 by say 5% in that time, won't our contribution in cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions by say 30% of that 3.7% amount to 2/3rds of 5/8ths of ... not a lot?
Please I'd like the above figures confirmed or shown wrong and an answer that will let me assess this whole thing.
As I'm one of the millions who will pay through the nose for the extra taxes and costs imposed by the carbon credits scheme I think I'm entitled to an answer before I part with this money willingly.
Les it is simple if you have studied Physics especially Thermodynamics and QuantumTheory.
It is not my job to spend three or four years to get the population up to speed by lecturing at great length on these subjects.
To attempt to answer your question in simple terms, here is a short version.
Water vapour will vary wildly day to day and year by year as it depends on the local temperatures and the availabilty of water.
To even consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a totally fallacy.
Again I will say 1998 was a VERY hot year. To use this as a benchmark for the last ten years is misguided at best and fraudulent at worst.
Of the last fifteen years thirteen were the hottest on record.
If it was not for the 200 ppm of CO2 we would have an average temperaturee of -17C. We are currently at 380 ppm the highest for 400,000 years and most probaby 20 million years.
I find it extraordinary that idiots who can barely solve a quadratic equation can pontificate on AGW.
If you do not listen to the accredited scientists. Who will you believe?
When the best solution Government can call upon is to introduce a tax one must wonder... On Top Gear I noted we now have a 10 cylinder v10 with twin tubo chargers ..a station wagon that beats a 911... we have planes boats and cars and their manufactures happy to catter for the bigger is better mentality and while all this is let pass we the mugs will pay more for our energy... irrespective of why the Earth is getting hotter I doubt if humans will change their behaviour and pointing to the horror of doing nothing wont change that...
The fact is we now have a new business with many getting their meal ticket from involvement in the issue and it is clear that many lobby using the horror of doing nothing as oil for their band wagon..
I doubt if Al GOre had anything in mind other than the opportunity of exploiting fear to make millions... on last check his house used $36,000 in energy and still no solar panels (so I believe).
The nueclear power lobby certainly are happy to help with their clean efficient remedy..remember when Mr John Howard can out, having never comented upon GW or any related issue he said words to the effect..We must appreciate we have GW so we need to consider NP and a week later some organisation comes out with where all the NP stations would be around the country... politicians only speak when they are lobbied and I suspect someone had their hand up the back of his shirt when he spoke on a matter he never before offerred any input...
Remeber the adds ... by a Marine bioligist lady..the barrier reef is going under so we must go for NP .. who paid for that add I wonder the marine life on the reef or some other bottom feeders.
Still on the possitive it is a new industry and lots of folk feel they are doing something for a better future or as they see it any future at all ... but in all matters if one follows the money one gets an insite... Al Gore certainly followed the money and left big carbon footprints for all to see.
But a tax ..how lame rich folk wont care cause it is the mugs at the bottom who will end up paying.
The science has little to do with it in my view and it seems that many are very eager to grad the science they find supports their addgendah and that is always dangerous as science is then corrupted.
I had a heater on last night Alex. Does that mean I can no longer comment. I am amazed that anyone can still doubt the science.
I will not bother to comment again as it is a waste of time.
ALL of you get a degree in science at least, and then we can have a logical conversation about the facts. Not some quasi scientific drivel promulgated by vested interests.
I have also read of the total CO2emissions (man-made & natural), the human component accounts for 2.91% according to the US Department of Energy or 3.67% according to the IPCC’s AR4 -- the IPCC's own report. That means that of CO2's contribution to greenhouse warming 96% is down to natural emissions. Is this right?
Les D
Ive read this in reputable publications also, and find it a real puzzle, could someone please specifically answer this question?.
I had a heater on last night Alex. Does that mean I can no longer comment. I am amazed that anyone can still doubt the science.
I will not bother to comment again as it is a waste of time.
ALL of you get a degree in science at least, and then we can have a logical conversation about the facts. Not some quasi scientific drivel promulgated by vested interests.
Bert
Bert I do not doubt the science at all but I dont feel the science has any control on the vested interests and to deny their input I feel may be failing to consider how some folk may well capitalize upon something to their profit.
All I say is this..it matters not why the world is hotting up it matters that we respond realisticaly and to talk about tax and still let the market for big toys rule is stupid.
I did not disagree with anything you said ..although I know I never seem to be agreeing with anybody.
I in fact do what everyone else says should be done..I consum very little , I live very modestly, I use solar power and drink rain water my car is 4 cylinder and I wear my clothes until they wear out to0tally.
Please dont think I disregarded your comment as if anyone here gets my respect for science it is you...
alex
To even consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a totally fallacy.
This will come as a surprise to the IPCC who on page 115 of the FAR Working Group 1 state (referring to the natural greenhouse effect):
'Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide is the second-most important one.'
I tried to find the relative contribution of each but so far the best have found is on a European Commission web page where it says that water vapour is responsible for 'about two thirds' of the natural greenhouse effect.
While looking that up I noticed that there is concern that water vapour increases caused by the rise in SST could produce a positive feedback and so enhance AGW.
the total CO2emissions (man-made & natural), the human component accounts for 2.91% according to the US Department of Energy or 3.67% according to the IPCC’s AR4 -- the IPCC's own report. That means that of CO2's contribution to greenhouse warming 96% is down to natural emissions. Is this right?
Best,
Les D
Les, I really haven't the motivation to look at all the points you rasied,
but on this one, the context is wrong.
It is true natural carbon dioxide sources are indeed vast...but so are the natural sinks, and they have been in equilibrium for the last 650,000 years ( where CO2 has sat around 270ppm)
From 1780 the CO2 rise has been well measured, remarkably linear and almost certainly human in origin due:
-CO2 from fossil fuels contains almost no C14,
-a 1-2 year concentration lag from Northern to Southern hemispheres,
-the close parallel in mass of fossil fuels burnt to the increase in the atmosphere
-despite a heck of a lot of effort, no known "new" natural source.
I had a heater on last night Alex. Does that mean I can no longer comment. I am amazed that anyone can still doubt the science.
I will not bother to comment again as it is a waste of time.
ALL of you get a degree in science at least, and then we can have a logical conversation about the facts. Not some quasi scientific drivel promulgated by vested interests.
Bert
Bert,
This works both ways.............my father has a science degree and a masters degree in applied mathematics.........and even he casts serious doubts on GW simply because of the misinformation (which he says is spread from both sides fo the camp) and the shear volume of $$$$$$ collected in taxes etc etc.
As for me, I only have a diploma in IT Database Designs, post grad in Marketing and a diploma in Chinese Medicine........so I do not think I am qualified to give any scientific reply. I do however have common sense that, be it as it may, I question. I dont automatically believe everything I read no matter where the source comes from. I remember many a world famous scientists still saying the world was flat.........aids comes from monkeys etc etc
I am still alive today (not necassarily becuase of science or a bunch of degrees) but because a few neutral people with the vision and maturity to look at things from a different angle and try something both different and untested.............untested cause they did not get funding as it went against the norm........in fact, science and degrees told me to have chemo...........yet most oncologists offer this as the only remedy.......yet there is only a 3% survival rate and most oncologists would not even treat their own families and friends with this treatment.
So, if you dont like me questioning GW, and my replies are not scientifically minded, does not mean I'm stupid or I can't question and yes I care very much about the world and the people in it............even more so the last 18 months.
Here is what the average global temperature is doing. Can you see why the deniers choose 1998 as a starting year for their pathetic arguments.
Bert
Thanks for the chart.
It shows, inter alia,
temperature over the recent past was not as high as 150 Ky ago.
however, CO2 levels have risen spectacularly.
This is as it should be, and a explained by Fred Hoyle: the relation between Co2 levels and temperature is logarithmic ie. it takes a very large increase in CO2 to induce a small increase in temperature
Les it is simple if you have studied Physics especially Thermodynamics and QuantumTheory.
It is not my job to spend three or four years to get the population up to speed by lecturing at great length on these subjects.
To attempt to answer your question in simple terms, here is a short version.
Water vapour will vary wildly day to day and year by year as it depends on the local temperatures and the availabilty of water.
To even consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a totally fallacy.
Again I will say 1998 was a VERY hot year. To use this as a benchmark for the last ten years is misguided at best and fraudulent at worst.
Of the last fifteen years thirteen were the hottest on record.
If it was not for the 200 ppm of CO2 we would have an average temperaturee of -17C. We are currently at 380 ppm the highest for 400,000 years and most probaby 20 million years.
I find it extraordinary that idiots who can barely solve a quadratic equation can pontificate on AGW.
If you do not listen to the accredited scientists. Who will you believe?
Nutters with an agenda?
Bert
Bert Can you see that: "it is simple if you have studied Physics especially Thermodynamics and QuantumTheory" and
"I find it extraordinary that idiots who can barely solve a quadratic equation can pontificate on AGW" might possibly be interpreted as being somewhat arrogant? and
"To even consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a totally fallacy" might possibly be wrong?
I am sick and tired of twits who grasp one tiny little 'factoid' to prove their position. I am merely showing how real science does things. Careful analysis of ALL available data. My own humble opinion is that us [sic] physicists study everything and derive mathematically predictable and testable systems. Then do more experiments.
My very nasty question is what the IPCC have been doing for years. And the deniers call it mere models when they cannot even differentiate a simple equation let alone think in terms of partial differential equations.
Pearls before swine!
Bert
Hey, Bert, you are in Adelaide why don't you go see Ian Pilmer he has analysed a lot more of data, unlike the IPCC. Are you suggesting that models are more reliable than analyses of real data?
temperature over the recent past was not as high as 150 Ky ago.
however, CO2 levels have risen spectacularly.
This is as it should be, and a explained by Fred Hoyle: the relation between Co2 levels and temperature is logarithmic ie. it takes a very large increase in CO2 to induce a small increase in temperature
temperature over the recent past was not as high as 150 Ky ago.
however, CO2 levels have risen spectacularly.
This is as it should be, and a explained by Fred Hoyle: the relation between Co2 levels and temperature is logarithmic ie. it takes a very large increase in CO2 to induce a small increase in temperature
Archy,
The time period to which you refer is at 120ka (ka = kilo annum is the correct unit, also Ma = mega annum) and is refered to as Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 5 (or just Stage 5) or the Last Interglacial. It is well known to be warmer and have higher sea-levels. This attributed to differences in the Earths orbital parameters, look up the Wiki on Milankovic for more details.
If you also look up Beer-Lamberts Law you will see that the relationship between concentration and absorbance of a spectral peak is indeed logarithmic. The situation however is a bit more complex as regards CO2. The relevant spectral line already has 0% transmission (or infinite absorbance) and so increases in CO2 concentration cannot absorb any more radiation at that wavelength. However, while ideal spectra consist of lines in the real world interactions betwen molecules produce an effect call peak broadening which changes the line to bell-shaped peaks. As the concentration rises the width of the 'shoulders' increases and it is this peak broadening which is responsibe for the increased absobance of heat in the atm by CO2.
While it is true that the amount of radiative forcing caused by CO2 increase is small it is significant because of its duration. For instance the sunspot cycle also changes slightly the energy arriving at the Earth but this does not produce a measurable effect because it rises for 5-6 years then drops again over the next 5-6 years. On the other hand the CO2 forcing has been going on for over a century (and is increasing). The difference is a bit like the difference between tugging your ear-lobe and hanging a weight on it for several years.
"it takes a very large increase in CO2 to induce a small increase in temperature"
(a) The increase in CO2 as a result of the Industrial Revolution from 1800 onwards is also accompanied by an increase in particulate emissions.
Particulate emissions provide a negative feedback and therefore offsets the greenhouse effect of CO2. ("global dimming").
(b) The interglacial/warm periods (excluding the current phase) have been initiated by an increase in temperature either through an increase in solar radiation, changes in the angle of the Earth's rotational axis, or axial precession of the Earth's orbit. This in turn has increased CO2 levels.
