Mathematically Confirmed: There Is No Climate Change Crisis

rightwingnews.com ^ | July 16, 2008

[Nipfan]

“Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise to levels not seen since the distant geological past .... “

Actually, this is apparently not the case. According to Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski’s paper, CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our Time, actual air readings over the past two centuries showed significantly higher CO2 readings than now, up to about 550 ppm. However, the IPCC chose to completely ignore these (I wonder why) and rely solely on their ice core calculations.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Don W]

LOL!

[SengirV]

The IPCC would lie? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya.

[LaurenD]

That is not what I’ve done. I wish I could find Gore’s graph he used in his movie to explain this better. It was HIS assertion, that CO2 and temp are directly related. The lines show almost identical changes in direction and magnitude up UNTIL PRESENT DAY.

The CO2 line for present day is a nearly vertical line with about double the length of the CO2 change shown from “mile of ice” to “pleasant day”. These were the units of measurement he gave so I had to assume that a “pleasant day” in the summer for a city like Detroit is around 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

Since it is Gore’s assertion that increasing temps and increased atmospheric CO2 are directly related in magnitude and direction, then the only math required, using the unit of measurement of 80 was (80+80X2).

The bottom of his temp line he said represented “being buried in a mile of ice” in cities such as Detroit. The peak of his temp line he represented as “a pleasant day” in the same North American cities. He then goes to the CO2 line above it (the same line that has been proportional in magnitude and direction up to present day), points out the near vertical CO2 line representing the increase of atmospheric CO2, makes a joke about the skeptics because we can just all see at this point what the implications are. The implications being that one day it will be too hot on earth for human life. Then he moves on without ever addressing the fact that if the 2 lines are directly related over time in magnitude and direction (which was his assertion and what the 2 lines show up until present day) that temps would already be around 240 degrees Fahrenheit in cities like Detroit.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL

[RightWhale]

The rest is terminology.

The rest is utterly foreign to any known natural language.

[ChinaThreat]

Good point. Its like the ‘Goat Theory’. No matter what goes in the front end of the goat, the same thing keeps coming out of the back end. Just like the hockey stick graph. Unless you are using an “al gore rythym” of course...lol

[wolfcreek]

Like mass suicide?

[AFPhys]

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

HIP HIP HOORAY!

Science WILL triumph -— I am regaining faith in that!

[AFPhys]

Good point. I hope that McCain and his campaign will have the courage to look at the newer data and reconsider the AGW hypothesis.

[AFPhys]

Now that the tide is turning — a lot of young scientists will want to make their mark, by showing how wrong their theses advisers were.

-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

[AFPhys]

My favorite line to any liberal when railing against their AGW hypothesis is to say, “Those computer models have enough free parameters in them that they could design that dress you’re wearing, or anything else, including the folds and wrinkles!”

The computer models are pure bunk as far as proving anything at all.

[AFPhys]

Your take on the importance of solar activity is fine, but I caution you that the lag in its influence is probably on the order of five years... probably a “five year moving average” would suffice. So far, I’m not sure we’ll be there by the end of this year. Next year, or the year later, if solar activity has not really blasted off to offset some of the current lack of activity, I would expect your cooling scenerio to be accurate.

As I write here, the current solar cycle has lasted 146 months. The previous fifty years, the cycle lengths averaged 125 months - at least 21months longer. Empirically, the last 200 years, the temperature sensitivity to solar cycle length has been approximately -0.28C/yr=-0.5F/yr=-0.1C/4months. So far, then, this cycle length suggests that the temperature during this coming decade will be about 0.5C cooler than the average of the previous 50 years. That will pretty much bring back to zero the “temperature anomaly” that has been seen in the US temperatures during the last century.

Time will tell... but if it tells the story I suggest here, the CO2/ AGW hypothesis will be pretty much shattered beyond reconciliation.

[AFPhys]

I agree with you. AGW is now coming under attack by so many true scientists that those who were lured in earlier are now going to reconsider their stance... and be really angry about their gullibility.

[AFPhys]

Lauren:

I just noticed that no one responded to your queries about water and CO2. I'm not surprised you weren't aware of the importance of Water... the OldMedia and the Demodogs and the environuts and the alarmists have done their best to hide that. It is all bound up in the absorption spectra. Below is a decent graphical representation. You can see that Water absorption occupies much more of the spectrum than CO2 does. In addition, you can note that if concentration of any absorber increases, it creates a logarithmic change in absorption, not a linear change. The primary effect of CO2 is that it slows the emission of heat from earth at about the 4um and 18um wavelengths, though water is also effective in the latter wavelength, too. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

[AFPhys]

I agree that it is important to see the next five years data to get a good handle on that, the importance of 1998. However, as of this writing, it appears that the last several years' temperature downtrend is real and significant. The past year, since the sun has become so quiescent, has been almost scary, but I trust that will level off soon. Note that CO2 has significantly increased during the last decade (as it has during the previous century) so its effects can not account for the temperature change. (Graph from junkscience.com "Global Warming" at a glance)

[Sherman Logan]

Look, it is just a fact that we are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels that have concentrated carbon out of the atmosphere for millions of years. CO2 has increased, and all the evidence is that its increase is anthropogenic.

The issue is to what extent this increase in carbon in the atmosphere is affecting the earth’s atmosphere.

In any case, we cannot add water to the earth’s atmosphere, which is for all practical purposes saturated with the stuff. It enters and leaves the atmosphere due primarily to temperature and other factors. Except inside buildings and in limited areas in deserts, we don’t presently have the ability to affect it much.

[Sherman Logan]

I disagree. We are taking carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere and the biosphere for millions of years and we are putting it back into the atmosphere.

Since 1750, this input from man, along with possibly other unknown factors, has resulted in atmospheric carbon dioxide going from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

Is this a problem? Scientifically speaking, we don’t know yet.

Is there some level at which the greenhouse effect associated with human-introduced carbon would become a huge problem? Absolutely. 1000 or 2000 ppm might be such a level, and besides would begin to have direct human health effects. Below those levels we just don’t know at present how the roughly 25% increase since 1750 will affect the weather.

That such an increase has occurred is not really open to debate. What the increase means for today and tomorrow is not known at present, despite what the warmists claim.

[DollyCali]

I hope so too(re McCain).. I am sure for these techie issues he relies on “advisors” .. which may be good or bad as we all know