http://www.physorg.com/news89653842.html
"Many of the newly elected members were beginning to ask whether the United States is doing what it should be doing on this issue," he said.
Perhaps (finally) admitting error and supporting Kyoto would be a good start. [What could it hurt you?]
I wouldn't hold my breath.
According to the White House
Bush through his budget proposals have devoted $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance and incentive programs — "more money than any other country."
Arthur
According to the White House
Bush through his budget proposals have devoted $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance and incentive programs — "more money than any other country."
Arthur
I wonder, did the UN have any recomendations for the other planets in our solar system which are also experiencing "Global Warming"?
We don't live there, the impact of Global Warming in human propertιes and human life would be meaningless as we have no there. Global Warming is not a horned demon, it is an environmental change so rapid that will bring great economic costs in the developed countries while it will make 3rd world country's people's lives a lot harder (we'll have many deaths there), also we have to forget for a bunch of animal species like polar bears who live in the poles or other places that climate change will influence the most. As soon as the rate of environmental change was most surely man made (the Global Warming itself was imminent one way or another), we are responsible with everything happening to our planet. By speeding the process up we never gave the chance to wildlife to adjust to that climate change -as they always did in the past- and we gonna have many species extinctions at once, less natural diversity is bad for everyone.
I think that the US and Chinese governments should stop looking after the next 5-year economic prospects they have and instead focus to their 50 year prospect they have ahead of them. It is foolish and childish the way these countries are behaving and this will be obvious by 2020s or so
I think that the US and Chinese governments should stop looking after the next 5-year economic prospects they have and instead focus to their 50 year prospect they have ahead of them. It is foolish and childish the way these countries are behaving and this will be obvious by 2020s or so
The addition of human heating under the gas comforter needs to be included in the research. Some ways are more obvious than others. Not the least may be that the hockey stick graph of the warming might be duplicated in both time frame and shape to one that tracks the inception and increase of energy frequencies from wireless communication that agitate, thus warm, the atmosphere and surfaces just as those from the Sun, with no built in regular cooling periods. Radio, data transmission, TV, Internet, satellites, cell phones, remotes, sensors, trackers, GPS, hand helds aplenty, even CBs, et al energy frequencies impact far more than just their targets. If the gas blanket restricts cooling does it also restrict warming from the Sun? Or is its impact just a one way street. In any event the increasing human heating, even from the gas emitting smokestacks, may be an equal opportunity culprit.
Over the past century the Earth’s surface temperature has increased .6 degrees Kelvin.
Over the last 25 years, we know that the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 3.6 degrees, and there is reason to believe it has been increasing this way for some time. The best we can do, is assume the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 14.4 degrees over the last century.
The earth lies along a heat pipe between the Sun and the universe. The temperature of the universe is about 3K, the Earth’s surface temperature is about 300K, and the Sun’s surface temperature is about 5800K. This means the Earth lies at a point along the universe-Earth-Sun heat pipe which is about 300/5800 = .052 the distance between the universe and the Sun.
Where the Earth lies along this heat pipe depends on many complicated factors that affect the heat flow non-linearly over any substantial range of temperature. However, we know where the Earth lies along this heat pipe, and we know that these factors have an effectively linear relationship over the narrow range of temperature of interest—namely far less than 1 percent.
Therefore if the Sun’s surface temperature increases by 14.4 degrees, then the Earth’s temperature increases by 14.4 x .052 = .75 degrees.
Thus, the Martian poles are melting.
Certainly man has added CO2 to the atmosphere. Certainly CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. However, it is obvious that man is not a major contributor to global warming.
Before putting any credibility into a group sanctioned by the U.N., one really should come up with at least as many reasons to trust the U.N. as there are to distrust it. Is it surprising that an organization, that is disproportionately controlled by politicians of third-world countries, would declare the first-world countries must stifle their industry? Is an academic degree really that definitive of a person’s intelligence and subjectivity? (Not in my experience). It is really quite easy to gather together a group of incompetent “doctors”. I know. I’ve seen it several times in my career.
If you still insist the above is not science, then at least have the where-with-all to 1) attempt to prove it wrong and 2) describe in detail the solution to your perceived problem, rather than repeatedly saying “we gotta do something”. Saying “we gotta do something” to a politician typically makes him grin and wring his hands. Even if I’m wrong, I honestly can’t think how anyone would believe our politicians could come anywhere near to improving the situation.
Over the last 25 years, we know that the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 3.6 degrees, and there is reason to believe it has been increasing this way for some time. The best we can do, is assume the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 14.4 degrees over the last century.
The earth lies along a heat pipe between the Sun and the universe. The temperature of the universe is about 3K, the Earth’s surface temperature is about 300K, and the Sun’s surface temperature is about 5800K. This means the Earth lies at a point along the universe-Earth-Sun heat pipe which is about 300/5800 = .052 the distance between the universe and the Sun.
Where the Earth lies along this heat pipe depends on many complicated factors that affect the heat flow non-linearly over any substantial range of temperature. However, we know where the Earth lies along this heat pipe, and we know that these factors have an effectively linear relationship over the narrow range of temperature of interest—namely far less than 1 percent.
Therefore if the Sun’s surface temperature increases by 14.4 degrees, then the Earth’s temperature increases by 14.4 x .052 = .75 degrees.
Thus, the Martian poles are melting.
Certainly man has added CO2 to the atmosphere. Certainly CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. However, it is obvious that man is not a major contributor to global warming.
Before putting any credibility into a group sanctioned by the U.N., one really should come up with at least as many reasons to trust the U.N. as there are to distrust it. Is it surprising that an organization, that is disproportionately controlled by politicians of third-world countries, would declare the first-world countries must stifle their industry? Is an academic degree really that definitive of a person’s intelligence and subjectivity? (Not in my experience). It is really quite easy to gather together a group of incompetent “doctors”. I know. I’ve seen it several times in my career.
If you still insist the above is not science, then at least have the where-with-all to 1) attempt to prove it wrong and 2) describe in detail the solution to your perceived problem, rather than repeatedly saying “we gotta do something”. Saying “we gotta do something” to a politician typically makes him grin and wring his hands. Even if I’m wrong, I honestly can’t think how anyone would believe our politicians could come anywhere near to improving the situation.
QUOTE (fleem+Feb 3 2007, 06:26 AM)
Before putting any credibility into a group sanctioned by the U.N., one really should come up with at least as many reasons to trust the U.N. as there are to distrust it. Is it surprising that an organization, that is disproportionately controlled by politicians of third-world countries, would declare the first-world countries must stifle their industry? Is an academic degree really that definitive of a person’s intelligence and subjectivity? (Not in my experience). It is really quite easy to gather together a group of incompetent “doctors”. I know. I’ve seen it several times in my career.
The IPCC has a way of stacking the deck with like minded scientists.
Here is the letter of resignation of one of the premier hurricane scientists because of the political actions of one of the lead authors of the IPCC report.
Predicably, the latest IPCC report now supports the contention that hurricanes ARE stronger.
Total BS.
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author — Dr. Kevin Trenberth — to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings tha tthis will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author. I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC and has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
The IPCC has a way of stacking the deck with like minded scientists.
Here is the letter of resignation of one of the premier hurricane scientists because of the political actions of one of the lead authors of the IPCC report.
Predicably, the latest IPCC report now supports the contention that hurricanes ARE stronger.
Total BS.
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author — Dr. Kevin Trenberth — to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings tha tthis will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author. I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC and has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 3 2007, 04:09 PM)
The IPCC has a way of stacking the deck with like minded scientists.
Here is the letter of resignation of one of the premier hurricane scientists because of the political actions of one of the lead authors of the IPCC report.
Predicably, the latest IPCC report now supports the contention that hurricanes ARE stronger.
Total BS.
Arthur then posts the whole item (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html), minus one crucial detail calculated to mis-lead: 17 January 2005, ie. this is old news. What are you expecting Arthur, perfection? Of course you would never make any mistakes ... It is of course unfortunate and I do agree with Chris Landsea:
Anyway, for the record here is what the report actually says about cyclones (ie. inc. hurricanes and typhoons), and note how balanced it is (my bolding):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf:
Anyway, for the record here is what the report actually says about cyclones (ie. inc. hurricanes and typhoons), and note how balanced it is (my bolding):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf:
There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. {3.8}
Here is the letter of resignation of one of the premier hurricane scientists because of the political actions of one of the lead authors of the IPCC report.
Predicably, the latest IPCC report now supports the contention that hurricanes ARE stronger.
Total BS.
Arthur then posts the whole item (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html), minus one crucial detail calculated to mis-lead: 17 January 2005, ie. this is old news. What are you expecting Arthur, perfection? Of course you would never make any mistakes ... It is of course unfortunate and I do agree with Chris Landsea:
QUOTE
When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC.
Anyway, for the record here is what the report actually says about cyclones (ie. inc. hurricanes and typhoons), and note how balanced it is (my bolding):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. |
Anyway, for the record here is what the report actually says about cyclones (ie. inc. hurricanes and typhoons), and note how balanced it is (my bolding):
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf:
There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. {3.8}
QUOTE (page 12+)
Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period. {9.5, 10.3, 3.8}
Except that the 70s were the LOW period of the Atlantic Osccilation.
So the statement is self serving based on its ARBITRARY use of endpoints (something the IPCC scientists are KNOWN for)
The fact is: There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal. The tropical climate patterns now favoring very active hurricane seasons are similar to those seen in the late 1920s to the late 1960s. The current active hurricane era began in 1995, meaning the nation is now 11 years into an active era that could easily last several decades (20-30 years or even longer). We can expect ongoing high levels of hurricane activity — and very importantly high levels of hurricane landfalls — as long as the active era continues.
But when you exclude Chris Landsea, Gary Bell and William Gray, the PREMIER researchers on Atlantic Basin Hurricanes but INCLUDE Trenbreth as the LEAD AUTHOR, when he has ALREADY DECIDED ON THE SCIENCE, even though as Chris said in his letter:
none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.
But hey, you want HEADLINES or do you want the actual SCIENCE.
Obviously Smithy perfers the DOOM AND GLOOM headlines.
Even if he has NOTHING to back it up.
Arthur
So the statement is self serving based on its ARBITRARY use of endpoints (something the IPCC scientists are KNOWN for)
The fact is: There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal. The tropical climate patterns now favoring very active hurricane seasons are similar to those seen in the late 1920s to the late 1960s. The current active hurricane era began in 1995, meaning the nation is now 11 years into an active era that could easily last several decades (20-30 years or even longer). We can expect ongoing high levels of hurricane activity — and very importantly high levels of hurricane landfalls — as long as the active era continues.
But when you exclude Chris Landsea, Gary Bell and William Gray, the PREMIER researchers on Atlantic Basin Hurricanes but INCLUDE Trenbreth as the LEAD AUTHOR, when he has ALREADY DECIDED ON THE SCIENCE, even though as Chris said in his letter:
none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.
But hey, you want HEADLINES or do you want the actual SCIENCE.
Obviously Smithy perfers the DOOM AND GLOOM headlines.
Even if he has NOTHING to back it up.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 3 2007, 07:55 PM)
Even if he has NOTHING to back it up.
Arthur
I didn't know you cared about backing anything up...
Anyway, after you presented an old letter from 2 years ago, and seem to expect the IPCC to be perfect , I presented the actual statements on cyclones 'for the record' as I said.
I fact, isn't it actually quite amazing that they have actually agreed so well? But then again, they have been able to play safe since the evidence has become so overwhelming due to the delay.
How are you doing with your theories: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=12038
Arthur
I didn't know you cared about backing anything up...
Anyway, after you presented an old letter from 2 years ago
, and seem to expect the IPCC to be perfect , I presented the actual statements on cyclones 'for the record' as I said.I fact, isn't it actually quite amazing that they have actually agreed so well? But then again, they have been able to play safe since the evidence has become so overwhelming due to the delay.
How are you doing with your theories: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=12038
QUOTE (adoucette+ Jan 15 2007, 07:44 PM)
It does however do a pretty good correlation with Solar activity, ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. 
Smithy
Smithy
Seams to me that the "chicken littlest" of the so called scientific community are the only ones that the media seams to listen to. If the predicted rise of 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century should occur, it may be a good thing. If you are a Green-lander it would bring the temperature back to where it was when the vikings first settled Greenland in the 10th century. It was called "Greenland " because it was green. The southern forests and fjords reminded them of their homeland.
For the last 300 years or so, since records of sunspot activity has been kept there has been a corresponding link between sunspot activity and the rise and fall of earths temperature.
As far as greenhouse gases are concerned mans contributions are paled to insignificance when compared to all the natural sources. Its a small fraction of whats released thru volcanic activity alone, both on the earths surface and under the seas. Add to this all thats released by biological activity and other natural out-gassing by the earth.
For the last 300 years or so, since records of sunspot activity has been kept there has been a corresponding link between sunspot activity and the rise and fall of earths temperature.
As far as greenhouse gases are concerned mans contributions are paled to insignificance when compared to all the natural sources. Its a small fraction of whats released thru volcanic activity alone, both on the earths surface and under the seas. Add to this all thats released by biological activity and other natural out-gassing by the earth.
QUOTE (??+)
Over the last 25 years, we know that the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 3.6 degrees, and there is reason to believe it has been increasing this way for some time. The best we can do, is assume the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 14.4 degrees over the last century.
A statement designed to mislead, even IF true. how about expalining what NET EFFECT 3.6 degrees would have on the suns output given its surface temperature which runs at about 5,785 degrees K? eg. from wikipedia. "A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming" or "Indeed, there is some evidence that sunshine at the Earth's surface has been decreasing in the last 50 years (see global dimming) possibly caused by increased atmospheric pollution, whilst over roughly the same timespan solar output has been nearly constant." or, from NASA, "It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades."
A statement designed to mislead, even IF true. how about expalining what NET EFFECT 3.6 degrees would have on the suns output given its surface temperature which runs at about 5,785 degrees K? eg. from wikipedia. "A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming" or "Indeed, there is some evidence that sunshine at the Earth's surface has been decreasing in the last 50 years (see global dimming) possibly caused by increased atmospheric pollution, whilst over roughly the same timespan solar output has been nearly constant." or, from NASA, "It is intriguing to extrapolate these results to longer term solar irradiance changes, which are roughly two to three times larger than solar cycle variations. The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades."
TSI is a tough thing to measure accurately.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsola....html#composite
Arthur
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsola....html#composite
Arthur
In 2006, the average global temperature was .01C above that of 1997.
1 / 100th of a degree C in 10 years.
Global "warming" has flatlined. It isn't getting any warmer.
However, the conmen are getting bolder.
1 / 100th of a degree C in 10 years.
Global "warming" has flatlined. It isn't getting any warmer.
However, the conmen are getting bolder.
lengould,
QUOTE (lengould+)
QUOTE (fleem+)
Over the last 25 years, we know that the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 3.6 degrees, and there is reason to believe it has been increasing this way for some time. The best we can do, is assume the Sun’s surface temperature has increased by about 14.4 degrees over the last century.
A statement designed to mislead, even IF true. how about expalining what NET EFFECT 3.6 degrees would have on the suns output given its surface temperature which runs at about 5,785 degrees K?
I included a clear, concise answer to that very question in the three sentences following the ones you quoted. We can discuss those, if you like.
I included a clear, concise answer to that very question in the three sentences following the ones you quoted. We can discuss those, if you like.
QUOTE (lengould+)
"Indeed, there is some evidence that sunshine at the Earth's surface has been decreasing in the last 50 years (see global dimming) possibly caused by increased atmospheric pollution..."
And this is your argument for human-induced global warming?
As for your statement that the solar surface temperature isn't notably rising, perhaps you should first attempt to answer the question, "Why are the martian ice caps melting?". After you do, I'll be glad to listen.
The article “Under a Variable Sun” at...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/VariableSun/
...points out the problems in measuring solar output and gives scientists from both sides a chance to have their say. Here are some highlights from the article (enclosed in quotes) with my commentary in square brackets or separate paragraphs:
“Claus Fröhlich, principal investigator for the VIRGO sensor on the SOHO mission, and Judith Lean made their own solar irradiance data set. One big difference between their approach and Willson’s [who claims solar output is increasing] is that they corrected the original results from NIMBUS 7-ERB for what they claim (in papers published in 1998 and 2002) are known sources of error caused by changes in the instrument over time."
I'm curious to know why they believe the sensor drifted upward. It isn't mentioned in the article.
"Fröhlich noticed that [the newer VIRGO sensor] behaved very much like NIMBUS 7 right after launch—also showing a spike in total solar irradiance at the start of the mission. Fröhlich and Lean corrected the NIMBUS-7 results partly based on the similarities between those two sensors.
The above is contradictory. If we see a trend that sensors show erroneously high readings when they are young, then ‘correcting’ for this will show even greater increase in solar output, not less. This makes so little sense that I suspect the article writer might have gotten something wrong, here.
[ERBE mission scientist Robert B. Lee, III states] “’The ERBS/ERBE Solar Monitor is still making precise TSI measurements after more than 19 years of operations. During this period, the ERBS/ERBE solar monitor experienced no instrument malfunctions which affected the resulting TSI measurements.’”
The fact that Lee does not attempt to explain why he believes his old-technology sensor hasn’t drifted (which is the same as saying the newer one's have drifted) makes me question his reliability.
“[Lee also states, speaking of Willson] ‘You have to look at the data set as a whole, not just bits and pieces of it.’”
This is spin. Lee is implying that Willson altered portions of data on a whim. He did nothing of the sort. The only fragmentation of data that Willson considered was already there—in the form of different data from different sensors. And Willson did less ‘correction’ on the data than the others did. If anything, Lee’s arbitrary decision that the sensor he happens to be working on is the only right one (in spite of the fact it is older technology) is far more a taking of data in “bits and pieces” than anything Willson did.
“As evidence that their combined data set is the correct way to assemble the satellite data, Lean compares the results of the data set Fröhlich and she put together to a model of solar activity that uses observable features of the Sun, namely the sunspots and faculae that are the primary cause of total solar irradiance variation, as substitutes (proxies) for total solar irradiance.”
This is absurd. You don’t “verify” the precision of a sensor accurate to five decimal places with data accurate to two decimal places! Statements like that should make one question any other claims from these people. Willson concurs:
“The deviation of his data set from the solar models doesn’t trouble Willson, who says that while the solar proxy models are useful for trying to describe solar activity back in time before scientists had actual observations of total solar irradiance , ‘the models are not competitive in accuracy or precision with even the worst total solar irradiance satellite observations.’”
“Joe Gurman, US Project Scientist for SOHO, isn’t so quick to dismiss the models. ‘These models have done a very good job in simulating the solar activity over recent solar cycles as well as more pronounced, long-term changes in solar output that can be linked to historically documented changes in climate,’ he says. ‘If you accept Willson’s conclusion that total solar irradiance has increased over the last two solar cycles, then not only do you have to explain why the models don’t show it, but you also have to explain why no other single instrument shows a similar increase, and why none of our other solar indicators, like total magnetic flux or ultraviolet light output, has shown a similar increase.’”
First, models designed to accurately predict tiny variations in average global surface temperature can hardly be validated by the the two-digit precision of historic surface temperature readings (at a handful of locations) and records of sun spot counts. Second, to verify his claim that the light sensors show no increase, he mentions the magnetic and ultraviolet sensors, yet those sensors are notably less precise than the light sensors and have also supplied data that is just as controversial.
The article goes on to mention an astronomer that sees long term variation in stars, which is interesting. Then it discusses the effect of an increase in solar output:
“Climate modeler Jim Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, agrees that the climate impact of .05 percent per decade would be practically non-existent if it were only maintained for one decade. ‘If such a small change were followed by no further change or a decrease, it’s not important,’ he says. ‘But if that rate of change were maintained for a century, it would be a change of 0.5 percent, which would be very important. A half of a percent change in solar output could raise temperatures, eventually, about three-quarters of a degree Celsius, which, coincidentally, roughly equals the observed warming in the past century,’ says Hansen. The apparent coincidence is no smoking gun, however. Because of their great heat storage capacity, the Earth’s oceans would buffer any increase in the Sun’s output for a long time.”
The last two sentences above (by the author) are non sequitur. The thermal mass of the oceans applies whether global warming is produced by man or produced by the sun.
The article does not mention Mar’s ice caps.
And this is your argument for human-induced global warming?
As for your statement that the solar surface temperature isn't notably rising, perhaps you should first attempt to answer the question, "Why are the martian ice caps melting?". After you do, I'll be glad to listen.
The article “Under a Variable Sun” at...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/VariableSun/
...points out the problems in measuring solar output and gives scientists from both sides a chance to have their say. Here are some highlights from the article (enclosed in quotes) with my commentary in square brackets or separate paragraphs:
“Claus Fröhlich, principal investigator for the VIRGO sensor on the SOHO mission, and Judith Lean made their own solar irradiance data set. One big difference between their approach and Willson’s [who claims solar output is increasing] is that they corrected the original results from NIMBUS 7-ERB for what they claim (in papers published in 1998 and 2002) are known sources of error caused by changes in the instrument over time."
I'm curious to know why they believe the sensor drifted upward. It isn't mentioned in the article.
"Fröhlich noticed that [the newer VIRGO sensor] behaved very much like NIMBUS 7 right after launch—also showing a spike in total solar irradiance at the start of the mission. Fröhlich and Lean corrected the NIMBUS-7 results partly based on the similarities between those two sensors.
The above is contradictory. If we see a trend that sensors show erroneously high readings when they are young, then ‘correcting’ for this will show even greater increase in solar output, not less. This makes so little sense that I suspect the article writer might have gotten something wrong, here.
[ERBE mission scientist Robert B. Lee, III states] “’The ERBS/ERBE Solar Monitor is still making precise TSI measurements after more than 19 years of operations. During this period, the ERBS/ERBE solar monitor experienced no instrument malfunctions which affected the resulting TSI measurements.’”
The fact that Lee does not attempt to explain why he believes his old-technology sensor hasn’t drifted (which is the same as saying the newer one's have drifted) makes me question his reliability.
“[Lee also states, speaking of Willson] ‘You have to look at the data set as a whole, not just bits and pieces of it.’”
This is spin. Lee is implying that Willson altered portions of data on a whim. He did nothing of the sort. The only fragmentation of data that Willson considered was already there—in the form of different data from different sensors. And Willson did less ‘correction’ on the data than the others did. If anything, Lee’s arbitrary decision that the sensor he happens to be working on is the only right one (in spite of the fact it is older technology) is far more a taking of data in “bits and pieces” than anything Willson did.
“As evidence that their combined data set is the correct way to assemble the satellite data, Lean compares the results of the data set Fröhlich and she put together to a model of solar activity that uses observable features of the Sun, namely the sunspots and faculae that are the primary cause of total solar irradiance variation, as substitutes (proxies) for total solar irradiance.”
This is absurd. You don’t “verify” the precision of a sensor accurate to five decimal places with data accurate to two decimal places! Statements like that should make one question any other claims from these people. Willson concurs:
“The deviation of his data set from the solar models doesn’t trouble Willson, who says that while the solar proxy models are useful for trying to describe solar activity back in time before scientists had actual observations of total solar irradiance , ‘the models are not competitive in accuracy or precision with even the worst total solar irradiance satellite observations.’”
“Joe Gurman, US Project Scientist for SOHO, isn’t so quick to dismiss the models. ‘These models have done a very good job in simulating the solar activity over recent solar cycles as well as more pronounced, long-term changes in solar output that can be linked to historically documented changes in climate,’ he says. ‘If you accept Willson’s conclusion that total solar irradiance has increased over the last two solar cycles, then not only do you have to explain why the models don’t show it, but you also have to explain why no other single instrument shows a similar increase, and why none of our other solar indicators, like total magnetic flux or ultraviolet light output, has shown a similar increase.’”
First, models designed to accurately predict tiny variations in average global surface temperature can hardly be validated by the the two-digit precision of historic surface temperature readings (at a handful of locations) and records of sun spot counts. Second, to verify his claim that the light sensors show no increase, he mentions the magnetic and ultraviolet sensors, yet those sensors are notably less precise than the light sensors and have also supplied data that is just as controversial.
The article goes on to mention an astronomer that sees long term variation in stars, which is interesting. Then it discusses the effect of an increase in solar output:
“Climate modeler Jim Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, agrees that the climate impact of .05 percent per decade would be practically non-existent if it were only maintained for one decade. ‘If such a small change were followed by no further change or a decrease, it’s not important,’ he says. ‘But if that rate of change were maintained for a century, it would be a change of 0.5 percent, which would be very important. A half of a percent change in solar output could raise temperatures, eventually, about three-quarters of a degree Celsius, which, coincidentally, roughly equals the observed warming in the past century,’ says Hansen. The apparent coincidence is no smoking gun, however. Because of their great heat storage capacity, the Earth’s oceans would buffer any increase in the Sun’s output for a long time.”
The last two sentences above (by the author) are non sequitur. The thermal mass of the oceans applies whether global warming is produced by man or produced by the sun.
The article does not mention Mar’s ice caps.
QUOTE (fleem+)
QUOTE ((lengould)+)
"Indeed, there is some evidence that sunshine at the Earth's surface has been decreasing in the last 50 years (see global dimming) possibly caused by increased atmospheric pollution..."
And this is your argument for human-induced global warming?
Actually, this is my argument for global warming concern. If you can convince yourself of it's invalidity, .....
1) Earth operates as a radiant black body in a vacuum. It absorbs radiant energy from the sun, which heats it up until it can re-radiate as much radiant energy as it receives. This is by far the GREATEST factor which establishes its average surface temperature. Other minor influences include variations in albedo, and in insolation. Insolation hasn't varied by more than 0.1% over at least the past 400 yrs, and very likely not for the past 2000 yrs. ["More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation]
2) At earth’s average temperature, all of it’s re-radiation occurs in the infrared band.
3) Anything which interferes with earth’s ability to radiate infrared will cause earth’s “radiating surface” temperature to rise in order to compensate by increasing its radiant temperature, so shifting the radiation to a higher-energy frequency.
4) Certain gas molecules can absorb infrared radiation and immediately re-emit it at approximately the same frequency, or perhaps lower. Problem is the photons they absorb are all outbound, the ones they re-emit are emitted in a random direction, 50% back toward the surface. These are the “Greenhouse gasses”, responsible for a 37 deg C higher temperature on earth compared to the moon. There are four main GHG’s in earth’s atmosphere, Water, CO2, Methane, Oxides of Nitrogen.
5) Water is currently responsible for perhaps 95% of the greenhouse effect. Problem is that the atmosphere’s water content is almost entirely dependent on earth’s surface temperature. Therefore, earth’s surface temperature is almost entirely controlled by its content of the other three, mainly CO2.
6) There are some complicating issues, such as an individual molecule’s average residence life in the atmosphere etc. Methane is about 20 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, but it only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years, before breaking down to CO2 and water. (CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H20) Then it is an ordinary CO2 molecule (in the atmosphere). Overall, releasing a methane molecule traps about 6 times more heat compared with releasing a CO2 molecule.
7) Surface temp also influenced by earth's albedo, eg. reflectivity which varies according to cloud and snow/ice coverage, and for short periods by particulate matter loading (particles at high altitude tend to intercept incoming radiation and re-radiate it randomly, eg. 50% outward, therefore cooling the surface). Volcanoes cool earth by inserting heavy particulate loadings into upper atmosphere, but effect only lasts for short times, eg. one or two yrs.
And this is your argument for human-induced global warming?
Actually, this is my argument for global warming concern. If you can convince yourself of it's invalidity, .....
1) Earth operates as a radiant black body in a vacuum. It absorbs radiant energy from the sun, which heats it up until it can re-radiate as much radiant energy as it receives. This is by far the GREATEST factor which establishes its average surface temperature. Other minor influences include variations in albedo, and in insolation. Insolation hasn't varied by more than 0.1% over at least the past 400 yrs, and very likely not for the past 2000 yrs. ["More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation]
2) At earth’s average temperature, all of it’s re-radiation occurs in the infrared band.
3) Anything which interferes with earth’s ability to radiate infrared will cause earth’s “radiating surface” temperature to rise in order to compensate by increasing its radiant temperature, so shifting the radiation to a higher-energy frequency.
4) Certain gas molecules can absorb infrared radiation and immediately re-emit it at approximately the same frequency, or perhaps lower. Problem is the photons they absorb are all outbound, the ones they re-emit are emitted in a random direction, 50% back toward the surface. These are the “Greenhouse gasses”, responsible for a 37 deg C higher temperature on earth compared to the moon. There are four main GHG’s in earth’s atmosphere, Water, CO2, Methane, Oxides of Nitrogen.
5) Water is currently responsible for perhaps 95% of the greenhouse effect. Problem is that the atmosphere’s water content is almost entirely dependent on earth’s surface temperature. Therefore, earth’s surface temperature is almost entirely controlled by its content of the other three, mainly CO2.
6) There are some complicating issues, such as an individual molecule’s average residence life in the atmosphere etc. Methane is about 20 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, but it only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years, before breaking down to CO2 and water. (CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H20) Then it is an ordinary CO2 molecule (in the atmosphere). Overall, releasing a methane molecule traps about 6 times more heat compared with releasing a CO2 molecule.
7) Surface temp also influenced by earth's albedo, eg. reflectivity which varies according to cloud and snow/ice coverage, and for short periods by particulate matter loading (particles at high altitude tend to intercept incoming radiation and re-radiate it randomly, eg. 50% outward, therefore cooling the surface). Volcanoes cool earth by inserting heavy particulate loadings into upper atmosphere, but effect only lasts for short times, eg. one or two yrs.
QUOTE (lengould+Feb 5 2007, 12:39 PM)
4) Certain gas molecules can absorb infrared radiation and immediately re-emit it at approximately the same frequency, or perhaps lower. Problem is the photons they absorb are all outbound, the ones they re-emit are emitted in a random direction, 50% back toward the surface. These are the “Greenhouse gasses”, responsible for a 37 deg C higher temperature on earth compared to the moon. There are four main GHG’s in earth’s atmosphere, Water, CO2, Methane, Oxides of Nitrogen.
N2, Oxygen and Ozone (O3) are also minor GHGs. They all absorb incoming Ultraviolet (UV) radiation (<0.3µm) thus protecting us on the surface and also causing the warming in the stratosphere above the tropopause.
Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide.
Absorbed radiation is transformed to either kinetic or potential energy and since it no longer exists in its original form, it cannot be "re-emitted" When molecules absorb infrared radiation they become excited and can release some of the energy in one of three ways:
A ) Chemical reaction (uncommon)
B ) Quenching (transferring energy thru collision to cooler molecules)
C ) Emission
The most common method is via emission but this is at a lower energy, thus it is also at at longer wavelength than was previously absorbed.
Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does, as could clouds in the absence of all other greenhouse gases. The reason is there is competition within the narrow bands of suitable longwave radiation that the GH gases can absorb.
Thus the temperature effect of CO2 provides a diminishing response as the amount goes up. The IPCC tries to get around this limitation of the impact of rising CO2 by insisting that there will be a FEEDBACK mechanism that causes the amount of H20 in the atmosphere to also go up. They brought this up in their FIRST report and have since neglected to prove this CRITICAL assumption (to their models output) however. Debate on this point is why the IPCC still publishes a RATHER WIDE range for the Forcing potential of CO2, with the LOWER bound only 1/3rd the value they assume.
Arthur
N2, Oxygen and Ozone (O3) are also minor GHGs. They all absorb incoming Ultraviolet (UV) radiation (<0.3µm) thus protecting us on the surface and also causing the warming in the stratosphere above the tropopause.
Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide.
Absorbed radiation is transformed to either kinetic or potential energy and since it no longer exists in its original form, it cannot be "re-emitted" When molecules absorb infrared radiation they become excited and can release some of the energy in one of three ways:
A ) Chemical reaction (uncommon)
B ) Quenching (transferring energy thru collision to cooler molecules)
C ) Emission
The most common method is via emission but this is at a lower energy, thus it is also at at longer wavelength than was previously absorbed.
Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does, as could clouds in the absence of all other greenhouse gases. The reason is there is competition within the narrow bands of suitable longwave radiation that the GH gases can absorb.
Thus the temperature effect of CO2 provides a diminishing response as the amount goes up. The IPCC tries to get around this limitation of the impact of rising CO2 by insisting that there will be a FEEDBACK mechanism that causes the amount of H20 in the atmosphere to also go up. They brought this up in their FIRST report and have since neglected to prove this CRITICAL assumption (to their models output) however. Debate on this point is why the IPCC still publishes a RATHER WIDE range for the Forcing potential of CO2, with the LOWER bound only 1/3rd the value they assume.
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.