Posted on 02/02/2007 3:48:30 AM PST by palmer
PARIS Feb 2, 2007 (AP)— International scientists and officials hailed a report Friday saying that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
...
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
...
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The massive propaganda assult continues. It would cost billions of dollars for a movie to get this much hype.
So what is the point of Kyoto?
Man accounts for 0.28% of greenhouse gases.
But note: it really might be true that greenhouse gases are increasing, and that the increases are dominated by human activities. That doesn't mean that the low uptick we are currently on has anything whatever to do with greenhouse gases
"And in other news, international scientists threw a big party at news that their predictions that a massive meteorite will strike the Earth and kill everyone in fact is correct."
(continued)
After all, Europe had an uptick of exactly the same sort from 1000 to 1300, and greenhouse gases had nothing to do with that.
Using the flows from the diagram, six cups of diluted koolaid (99%) are dumped into the the 760 cup atmosphere bucket decreasing that 13C/12C ratio by 0.008%. The atmosphere bucket mixes well with the ocean surface bucket which is about the same size so really the 6 cups of water are mixed with 1560 cups of ocean/atmosphere to cause about a 0.004% 13C/12C decrease overall.
Plants prefer 12C so the land bucket takes more 12C and releases a small amount of 99% in forest fires. Similarly, the ocean takes in whatever the atmosphere offers, but plankton will only sequester 12C, not 13C. If fossil fuels should cause 0.004% decrease but we are only seeing a 0.001% decrease (0.15% averaged over 150 years), where is the missing decrease going? I.e. there must be more nonpreferential carbon storage somewhere to get rid of that extra 13C, or the numbers in the diagram are wrong, either case is enough to make the human component a nonissue.
The better question to answer is how long the CO2 hangs around on average in order to achieve a relatively low difference between the oceans and atmosphere for 13C/12C (I'm not sure we can measure the overall ratio on land). From sources like this http://www.fiu.edu/~vcorne01/paper.htm there is about a 1% greater 13C/12C ratio in CO2 in seawater than in atmospheric CO2. The fossil fuel ratio should be about 20% less than the atmosphere ratio. That implies a rapid rate of interchange between atmosphere and ocean although I have so far not figured out the rate of diffusion.
However people who have analyzed this (e.g. Tom Segalstad) here: Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2 show a CO2 lifetime of about 5 years, giving lie to the "centuries" claim made today by the IPCC.
My response to your water / food coloring analogy you made the other day (see post 7).
"no matter how much humans control their pollution"
So why bother spending massive amounts of money to reduce Co2 amounts?
This group, the UN's IPCC doesn't even conduct it's own studies. They review papers published by others.
The Chair of the IPCC is a documented Exxon-hater, Rajendra K. Pachauri. He advocated a boycott of Exxon based on their climate views, and because it would hurt the US economically.
The 3 vice chairs are also questionable as 'objective' opinions.
One of these vice chairs, Yuri Izrael, was the head of the Russian agency that hid radiologicval data about Chernobyl from the public. Yeah, he's reliable.
Another, Richard Odingo once wrote an Op-Ed piece with the title:
We can't solve poverty until we stop climate change
There is no point in giving sacks of food every time drought wipes out crops - that's just not sustainable
The 3rd vice chair is the progenator of Sustainomics - Mohan Munasinghe. He is less controversial than the above IMO, but has a vested interest in being a global warming alarmist.
There is not an objective viewpoint in the upper heirarchy of this group.
Because that's their real socialist agenda. If their models were accurate, which they are not, we could easily use them to determine relative inexpensive climate mitigation if that became necessary.
The Republicans in the congress should draft the following legislation:
All thermostats in Federal buildings-Including the Capitol (every post office etc) should be set at 64 degrees in the winter. And the air condition systems should be shut off and disconnected in the summer-there is no reason to have the Capitol or post offices air conditioned-air conditioning is a luxury that is contributing to the global warming hysteria.
I have been in the field of science for some time now and I have not been aware of the term "very likely" translating to "more than 90% certainty."
And they select chairmen to lead writing each chapter who are rabid pro-global warming despite what their credentials are. More qualified people are routinely left off committees if they are not koolaid drinkers.
The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) stood at 379 parts per million in 2005, up from about 280 ppm in 1750, before the industrial revolution, the report said. Concentrations of CO2, and methane, another greenhouse gas, exceed ``by far'' the highest in an Antarctic ice-core record stretching back 650,000 years. Those increases are primarily attributable to fossil fuel use and land-use change, Susan Solomon, who chaired talks this week, said at a Paris news conference.
Here's the main source of data: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
Notice the readings thousands of years apart, how can those be compared to the current 150 year blip today? Obviously a blip like today's would be lost since each measurement represents centuries of average CO2 levels compressed into one measurement.
All Hail The Report!
Is it me or does it seem that the Global Warming Nuts have stepped up the rhetoric in the last few months? When serious scientists brought up the concept of the sun, it evidently panicked the socialists who were championing this hoax to gain advantage in their global socialist scheme and the redistribution of wealth that it would push.
There has been more and more evidence that Global warming is a natural cyclic phenomena. This threatens socialism and the socialists are now resorting tom the Chicken Little approach.
After being bombarded by this BS 24/7, I no longer doubt that we are being brow beaten to buy into this big lie for political reasons. A man made lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.