What Do We Think About Climate Change

PS
Use normal print or it will not fit in my paella

 

I heard from a guy working on a very large desalination plant that they have considered a falling sea level due to the drying up of many rivers and the sea going down as everybody is help bent on desal for fresh water and recycling so sewerage no longer goes into the sea and with the planet warming will make more places humid so hence more moisture carried in the air.

 

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc

Cheers.

 

Paella recipe:

http://www.lingolex.com/spanishfood/paella.html

P.S (To Hoyt's sake)
Beatiful red boiled shrimps, aren't they?

 

Do you refer to the Shrimp's quotes?

 

About the 2,500 reviewers and the like...

I have clarified it before, but no problem in posting again (please, be my guests) for the stubborn ones around here:

University of East Anglia's scientist Mike Hulme
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”

(bolded is mine)

It is well known that no more than fifty-three IPCC 2007 authors (of which more than 40 were part of a network of people who worked previously together) and five reviewers are all that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate. Not a big crowd, in my humble opinion.

 

No one scientists claims typically account for much but instead its a group effort by a number of people over a long period of time that really tells the tail.

Might be why the scientific community was clamoring for an organization like the IPCC in the first place

besides
mention of another "gate" is the definition of disingenuous after such a stellar rebuttal from our friends at the IPCC has already addressed the fact that these controversies are

well
lets let the IPCC speak for itself on this one

 

Netherland have studied IPCC' reports after the different *"gates"...

quote:

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency found no errors that would undermine the main conclusions in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on possible future regional impacts of climate change. The IPCC report conclusively shows that these effects already are visible in many places around the world, and that these will become more serious under further temperature increases. However, the foundation for some of these conclusions could have been made more transparent.​

quote end

link to their comments:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressrele...-impacts-overall-considered-well-founded.html

Just for some additional info, but hey, well, when had the Netherland any scientists to be considered seriously? (that was sarcasm)...

I'm still with the "bettersafethansorry" group...

 

I'm suspicious as all the bankrupt governments are falling over themselves to prove GW exists as what they are and will do is use it as an excuse to tax you.
Most European governments are actually doing nothing to reduce the ingredients of global warming ( where the money in that?) just raise extra tax that they so desparately need.
It would have to be most debated "science" the world has ever discussed...
where's there smoke there's fire
When did so many scientist ( that rely on government funding) have so much pressure applied ot them to prove the thesis.....
( maybe only with the MMR vaccination?)

 

Knut: I did not find a single word on the anthropogenic origin of the (always evolving) climate changing in that press release. Those guys focuse on the IPCC Working Group II Report about impacts of climate change, which of course it has, whatever its origin. And of course they try to minimize IPCC mistakes to hide their own one with sea level and flooding Holland....

And we can check by ourselves the accuracy of the WGII projections. I'll be back on several of such projections once again.

 

But we are talking anthropogenic CO2 and temperature here. Let's first focuse on this once again.

We could expect that justifying and quantifying man-made carbon dioxide (and to a lesser extent other gases) leads to warming of the atmosphere, via the so-called "radiative forcing" effect would occupy a major part of the AR4 WG1 report. But it is very difficult to find any details on this in AR4.

The SPM describes at some length the increase in carbon dioxide and other gases, but only briefly states that the net effect of all the man-made influences is a radiative forcing (RF) of 1.6 Watts/m^2. (Recall that this number is wrong, about 0.3 too large, because of a simple arithmetic error that the IPCC does not acknowledge). The dominant contribution to this is apparently from carbon dioxide, with an effect also of around 1.6, according to Figure SPM2.

Searching for support for these numbers, we turn to chapter 2 of the main WG1 report. Section 2.3.1 discusses atmospheric carbon dioxide. Here there is again more discussion of how carbon dioxide has increased, from 0.028% to a massive 0.038%. But on the crucial question of how this leads to an RF, there is only this on page 140:

"The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC 1990 expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.)"

Note that Ramaswamy et al. (2001) is not a scientific paper - it is the previous IPCC report (the TAR)! Astonishingly, all the IPCC can come up with to justify the key step in its argument is the blunt statement that its previous formulas are valid. The following sentence mentions a paper by Collins et al (2006), "Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate models in the IPCC AR4". This paper gives estimated RF values at the Earth's surface of 0.38 - 0.57 for present carbon dioxide levels, or 1.12 - 1.64 for a doubling of CO2 (obtained by computer models). Note that these values are far lower than those claimed by the IPCC. A key feature of these computations is that the RF depends very strongly on height - for example the value 0.38 increases to 1.82 at the tropopause. The IPCC AR4 chapter 2 does not mention this, because it would bring up the embarrassment of the missing "greenhouse signature" - warming due to CO2 should be greater in the atmosphere than at the surface, but measurements show that it is not.

The 'simple formulae' in Ramaswamy et al (the TAR) can be seen in Table 6.2 of the TAR, in section 6.3.5. This table has three different formulae, that give different answers for the RF due to doubling of CO2. The simplest one is RF = 5.35 ln (C/C0), and it is probably this one that is used in AR4, but this is not made clear. This is the best example of the astonishingly sloppy and careless work of the IPCC on this crucial issue.

 

"However, the foundation for some of these conclusions could have been made more transparent."​

I can second that.

CO2 have its properties as a gas, Heat transfer can occur on 3 ways, radiation, convection and conductivity. CO2 have some impact on all 3. If atmosphere composition is altered, energy input, daytime, may not balance with the energy loss, nighttime.

On the other hand, change is normal. But why not also listen to those that have concluded that the changes (they've) seen now, seem to be faster than anything "recorded" earlier?

 

its the definition of denial Knut

even though its been shown beyond all reasonable doubt
some folks would just rather believe its all one big conspiracy to take there money, than face the stark reality; its us, and we have backed ourselves into a corner.

that and some folks fear change
specially the ones are clinging with a death grip to what little they have
they fear any change at all good or bad might just send them down that slippery slope into poverty.

cant blame them for being apprehensive but knowledge is power
so educate thyself and learn a better way

or be destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over until something finally busts

maxim for these folks is

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

 

Just a halt to say....Spain is the best! We are going to win the Soccer World Campionship! Do the warmers like it or not!

 

Beautiful indeed, and I love paella. Unfortunately I am allergic to all crustaceans and must bypass not only paella but also cajun crawdads.