Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" <who@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:emja83pptrtmg4a91b2i6ff000q127fmkg@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:59:48 GMT, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The hostility meeted out to any critic of AGW tells a hell of a lot. The IPCC science is shaky
and that's being very kind about it. I've discovered some outright 'lies' in their data.

What 'lies' have you discovered?

Let's start with this one.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/sip1a.jpg

" The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a
proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7].

The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in
pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was ?too
high?. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290
ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. "

Got changed into this by the IPCC

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/sip1b.jpg

" An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the
average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it
was trapped. The ?corrected? ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure
1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous ?Siple curve?. Only thirteen years
later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the ?age assumption?[10], but they
failed[9]. "

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Read and digest:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Doesn't address Beck's criticisms.


No, your link was to Jaworowski

Besides it's mainly ad honinems.


No it isn't. If you or anybody else took the trouble to read it, and
the links and references, you would have found plenty of 'substance'.
I will admit that a certain amount of contempt show sthrough. Hardly
surprising!

It important to note that these data are about 20yrs. old and are not
relevant to the present SOTA or the present IPCC report, except as
history.

Now to Herr Beck..
Thanks for confirming that you take these clowns seriously.

"?Climate sceptics? do not like this and keep coming up with their own
temperature histories. One of the weirdest has been circulated for
years by German high-school teacher E.G. Beck (notorious for his
equally weird CO2 curve)."

"But Beck did not stop at simply using this outdated curve, he
modified it as highlighted in green in Figure 2. First, he added a
wrong temperature scale"

" As this would destroy his message, Beck applied another fakery: he
extended the curve flat up to the year 2000, thereby denying the
measured warming since the 1970s. With this trick, his curve looks as
if it was warmer in Medieval times than now."

"He also added instrumental temperatures for the 20th Century at the
end ? but with his wrong temperature scale, they are completely out of
proportion."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/#more-450

"Recently an article by E-G. Beck has been wafting through the
Internet and has now been 'published' by Energy and Environment which
challenges all these findings or, more precisely, ignores the last 50
years of carbon cycle research"

"So what does the new CO2 ?reconstruction? look like? For example,
within 15 years CO2 levels rose from about 290ppm (1925) to about
470ppm (1942). Worse, within only 10 years these huge CO2 levels were
absorbed again and came back to boring mainstream values of about
300ppm.

"The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is
too long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:

The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably
huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon
per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year
(except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and
the terrestrial biosphere). Beck?s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a
decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten
times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007
(putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2
levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the
real CO2 source must even be larger).
Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the
atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring
cellulose data.
Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with
volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles
Keeling 1955 (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf )
however doesn?t show much variability associated with the big
eruptions of El Chichon, Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know
however that on much longer, geologic, timescales, CO2 levels are
heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not
important on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale).
The paper suggests that the CO2 peak in the 1940 is forced by the
first temperature rise in the 20th century. That would make 150ppm due
to a temperature shift of 0.4°C. What happened then with the next rise
from the 1970s to today? The observed about 0.5°C rise corresponded to
?only? 70ppm always assuming that fossil fuel combustion does not
leave any remains in the atmosphere....
And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO2
concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of
three different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an
accelerating rise of CO2 above levels of natural variability over the
last 650.000 years.
This paper has already received some appropriately critical reviews
(particularly from Rabett Run here and here) and oddly was very warmly
received by Lyndon LaRouche. We will try to refrain from drawing any
conclusions from this..."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

"Two weeks ago, we published the first lesson in curve manipulation
taught by German school teacher and would-be scientist E.G. Beck: How
to make it appear as if the Medieval times were warmer than today,
even if all scientific studies come to the opposite conclusion. Today
we publish curve manipulation, lesson 2: How to make it appear as if
20th Century warming fits into a 1500-year cycle. This gem is again
brought to us by E.G. Beck. In 'a recent article (in German), he
published the following graph:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/curve-manipulation-lesson-2/

"Remember E-G Beck's dodgy CO2 graph? Well, at RealClimate Stefan
Rahmstorf finds Beck presenting another dodgy graph. Look at the
perfectly regular temperature cycles in Beck's graph:"

"But they are only regular cycles because Beck changed the horizontal
scale in the middle of the graph. Here's what it looks like with a
uniform scale:"

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/another_dodgy_graph_from_eg_be.php




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm

Global warming 'proof' detected

Earth from space, Nasa

The team says it has found "the smoking gun"

*by Richard Black - BBC News


The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back
into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US.

They base their findings on computer models of climate, and on
measurements of temperature in the oceans.

The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking
for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet.

The results are published in the journal Science this week.



.....
older
.....

http://www.livescience.com/environment/global_warming_041115.html


Report: Proof of Global Warming

By Matt Crenson, AP National Writer

posted: 15 November 2004 11:43 am ET

Share this story

Politicians in the nation's capital have been reluctant to set limits on
the carbon dioxide pollution that is expected to warm the planet by 4 to
7 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century, citing uncertainty about
the severity of the threat. But that uncertainty may have shrunk
somewhat with the release last week of two scientific reports suggesting
that global warming is not just a hypothetical possibility, but a real
phenomenon that has already started transforming especially sensitive
parts of the globe.

Overall, the reports say, Earth's climate has warmed by about 1 degree
Fahrenheit since 1900. In the Arctic, where a number of processes
amplify the warming effects of carbon dioxide, most regions have
experienced a temperature rise of 4 to 7 degrees in the last 50 years.

That warmth has reduced the amount of snow that falls every winter,
melted away mountain glaciers and shrunk the Arctic Ocean's summer sea
ice cover to its smallest extent in millennia, according to satellite
measurements. Swaths of Alaskan permafrost are thawing into soggy bogs,
and trees are moving northward at the expense of the tundra that rings
the Arctic Ocean.

These changes seriously threaten animals such as polar bears, which live
and hunt on the sea ice. The bears have already suffered a 15 percent
decrease in their number of offspring and a similar decline in weight
over the past 25 years. If the Arctic sea ice disappears altogether
during the summer months, as some researchers expect it will by the end
of the century, polar bears have little chance of survival.

Things are less serious in the lower 48, where the effects of climate
change have been more subtle. In much of the United States, spring
arrives about two weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago. Tropical bird
species have appeared in Florida and along the Gulf Coast. Species such
as Edith's checkerspot, a butterfly native to western North America,
have started dying out at the southern reaches of their ranges.

"Responses to climate change are being seen across the U.S.A," said
Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the University of Texas in Austin. She
is the co-author, with Hector Galbraith of the University of Colorado in
Boulder, of "Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S." The
report was released Tuesday by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
a non-partisan but not disinterested research organization dedicated to
providing sound scientific information about global warming.

Parmesan and Galbraith acknowledge that nothing in the report would
strike the average person as particularly alarming. They also allow that
some of the past century's warming might have happened even if humans
hadn't been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But they argue
that the changes they describe should be taken as a "very clear signal"
that climate change will have significant effects in coming decades.

"The canaries in the coalmine are squawking, and we should absolutely
take that seriously," Galbraith said.

The Bush administration has argued that not enough is known about
climate change to justify major efforts at forestalling or preventing
future warming.

The Arctic report, released Monday, was commissioned by the Arctic
Council, an international commission of eight countries, including the
United States, and six indigenous groups. It was written by a team of
300 scientists.

"The report will be a valuable contribution to the literature on
potential regional impacts of climate change, and the United States
government will take its findings into account as it continues to review
the science," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a
statement released Tuesday.

The United States faces a potential showdown with other members of the
Arctic Council on Nov. 24, when representatives of the organization's
members are scheduled to meet in Iceland to consider climate change
policy recommendations.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen from 280 parts
per million in 1800 to 380 parts per million today due to the combustion
of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide causes warming because it heats up more
when exposed to sunlight compared to other atmospheric gases.

Scientists have always expected the Arctic to respond earlier and more
intensely than other regions to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, thanks to several phenomena that make the far north
especially sensitive to climate perturbations. When warmer temperatures
melt snow, for example, the bare ground that is exposed absorbs more
heat than the white surface did, causing yet more warming. A similar
thing happens when sea ice melts, exposing open water.


do visit this site as well.

http://www.globalboiling.com/


.

Loading