Is climate change a man-made phenomenon ?
Re: Is climate change a man-made phenomenon ?
da lucbac65 » 06/11/2015, 16:23
Re: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
IET MyCommunity <mycommunity@theiet.org>
A rbriteng@yahoo.it
Oggi alle 2:47 PM
IET myCommunity
Hi Luciano, Instant Alert
Re: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon? in Energy
Posted on 6 November, 2015 at 13:46 Europe/London
Roger Bryant
Prompted by a point an a graph labeled Hansen 1984 I thought that I would delve a little into the history of CO2 and AGW. I searched back to a report by the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee from 1983. This is available as a download online:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changi ... -committee
http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=18714
The first point I noted in the executive summary was,
“8. Results of most numerical model experiments suggest that a doubling of CO2 , if maintained indefinitely , would cause a global surface air warming of between 1 . 5 °C and 4 . 5 °C. The climate record of the past hundred years and our estimates of CO2 changes over that period suggest that values in the lower half of this range are more probable. (Chapters 4 , 5)”
30 years later after vast amounts of expensive research the IPCC AR5 came up with the same figures! Can anything change, or is it the case as with fundamental physics and string theory that groupthink has taken over and original thought is no longer possible?
The CO2 level estimates were also interesting,
“The median estimate for passing 600 ppm is 2065. For the year 2000, the most likely concentration is 370 ppm , with an upper limit of about 400 ppm.”
The Mauna Loa annual average for 2000 was 369.52 ppm! I would be proud to make a 25 year plus prediction that close.
Figure 1.12 is a pre Hockey stick temperature chart from 1880 to 1980 showing a steady temperature drop from 1940 to 1980.
The ECS validation is also interesting,
“The available data on trends in globally or hemi spherically averaged temperatures over the last century, together with estimates of C02 changes over the period , do not preclude the possibility that slow climatic changes due to increasing atmospheric CO2 projections might already be under way. If the climate has warmed about 0.5°C and the preindustrial CO2 concentration was near 300 ppm , the sensitivity of climate to CO2 (expressed as projected increase of equilibrium global temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration) might be as large as suggested by the upper half of the range indicated earlier , i.e. , up to perhaps 4.5°C , if the preindustrial C02 concentration was well below 300 ppm and if other forcing factors did not intervene , however , the sensitivity must be below 3°C if we are to avoid inconsistency with the available record (see Figure 1.13).”
From the Law Dome ice core the preindustrial CO2 levels were around 275-280ppm so figure 1.13 gives an ECS of around 2.
There is a lot more interesting reading about the predicted effects of climate change on agriculture, sea levels, etc. along with a lot of uncertainties that still have not been resolved/improved.
Climate science along with fundamental physics does not appear to have moved along in the last 30 plus years. In both cases I think that we must be missing something fundamental!
Best Regards
Roger
PS . What does ppm mean?
This is an abbreviation for "parts per million" and it also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means the same thing.
And also : http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/numb ... calculator
IET MyCommunity <mycommunity@theiet.org>
A rbriteng@yahoo.it
Oggi alle 2:47 PM
IET myCommunity
Hi Luciano, Instant Alert
Re: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon? in Energy
Posted on 6 November, 2015 at 13:46 Europe/London
Roger Bryant
Prompted by a point an a graph labeled Hansen 1984 I thought that I would delve a little into the history of CO2 and AGW. I searched back to a report by the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee from 1983. This is available as a download online:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18714/changi ... -committee http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=18714The first point I noted in the executive summary was,
“8. Results of most numerical model experiments suggest that a doubling of CO2 , if maintained indefinitely , would cause a global surface air warming of between 1 . 5 °C and 4 . 5 °C. The climate record of the past hundred years and our estimates of CO2 changes over that period suggest that values in the lower half of this range are more probable. (Chapters 4 , 5)”
30 years later after vast amounts of expensive research the IPCC AR5 came up with the same figures! Can anything change, or is it the case as with fundamental physics and string theory that groupthink has taken over and original thought is no longer possible?
The CO2 level estimates were also interesting,
“The median estimate for passing 600 ppm is 2065. For the year 2000, the most likely concentration is 370 ppm , with an upper limit of about 400 ppm.”
The Mauna Loa annual average for 2000 was 369.52 ppm! I would be proud to make a 25 year plus prediction that close.
Figure 1.12 is a pre Hockey stick temperature chart from 1880 to 1980 showing a steady temperature drop from 1940 to 1980.
The ECS validation is also interesting,
“The available data on trends in globally or hemi spherically averaged temperatures over the last century, together with estimates of C02 changes over the period , do not preclude the possibility that slow climatic changes due to increasing atmospheric CO2 projections might already be under way. If the climate has warmed about 0.5°C and the preindustrial CO2 concentration was near 300 ppm , the sensitivity of climate to CO2 (expressed as projected increase of equilibrium global temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration) might be as large as suggested by the upper half of the range indicated earlier , i.e. , up to perhaps 4.5°C , if the preindustrial C02 concentration was well below 300 ppm and if other forcing factors did not intervene , however , the sensitivity must be below 3°C if we are to avoid inconsistency with the available record (see Figure 1.13).”
From the Law Dome ice core the preindustrial CO2 levels were around 275-280ppm so figure 1.13 gives an ECS of around 2.
There is a lot more interesting reading about the predicted effects of climate change on agriculture, sea levels, etc. along with a lot of uncertainties that still have not been resolved/improved.
Climate science along with fundamental physics does not appear to have moved along in the last 30 plus years. In both cases I think that we must be missing something fundamental!
Best Regards
Roger
PS . What does ppm mean?
This is an abbreviation for "parts per million" and it also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means the same thing.
And also :
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/numb ... calculatorRe: Is climate change a man-made phenomenon ?
da lucbac65 » 03/12/2015, 6:59
But someone denies any fault of Human Activities on Climate Change :
Paris climate conference: 10 reasons why we shouldn't worry about 'man-made' global warming
The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris would have us all terrified about the future of the environment. Here's why I'm not ,say Christopher Booker , the author of The Real Gloal Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession With Climate Change Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?
Yesterday, President Obama and a phalanx of other world leaders joined 40,000 delegates in Paris for the formal opening of what has been billed as “one of the most important international conferences in history”.
Its aim is to win agreement on a plan that would halt global warming, by holding down temperatures to 2 degrees C above their pre-industrial level.
They want “a binding treaty” committing the world’s nations to make massive cuts in their emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
World leaders pose for a family photo during the COP21, United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Le Bourget, outside Paris, on November 30, 2015. World leaders pose for a family photo during the COP21 Conference Photo: AFP
For 30 years we have been told how, thanks to the dramatic rise in CO2, temperatures have been soaring to unprecedented levels. This is causing polar ice to melt, sea-levels to rise and has brought a dangerous increase in “extreme weather events”, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts and floods.
ADVERTISING
Nothing has been more influential in promoting this “consensus” view than a succession of reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These are based on computer models which predict that, unless the world abandons fossil fuels, temperatures will rise through the 21st century by 0.3 degrees per decade. Indeed by 2100 they could even have soared by as much as 5 degrees.
So what could be wrong about the world’s nations getting together to prevent such a disaster before it is too late?
In fact, in more recent years scarcely a single point in this “consensus” theory has not been questioned by a growing array of independent experts, including some of the most eminent scientists in the world.
Here are 10 of the claims made by those gathered in Paris, with commentary on just how far their fears are really justified .
English http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/p ... rming.html
Paris climate conference: 10 reasons why we shouldn't worry about 'man-made' global warming
The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris would have us all terrified about the future of the environment. Here's why I'm not ,say Christopher Booker , the author of The Real Gloal Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession With Climate Change Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?
Yesterday, President Obama and a phalanx of other world leaders joined 40,000 delegates in Paris for the formal opening of what has been billed as “one of the most important international conferences in history”.
Its aim is to win agreement on a plan that would halt global warming, by holding down temperatures to 2 degrees C above their pre-industrial level.
They want “a binding treaty” committing the world’s nations to make massive cuts in their emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
World leaders pose for a family photo during the COP21, United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Le Bourget, outside Paris, on November 30, 2015. World leaders pose for a family photo during the COP21 Conference Photo: AFP
For 30 years we have been told how, thanks to the dramatic rise in CO2, temperatures have been soaring to unprecedented levels. This is causing polar ice to melt, sea-levels to rise and has brought a dangerous increase in “extreme weather events”, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts and floods.
ADVERTISING
Nothing has been more influential in promoting this “consensus” view than a succession of reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These are based on computer models which predict that, unless the world abandons fossil fuels, temperatures will rise through the 21st century by 0.3 degrees per decade. Indeed by 2100 they could even have soared by as much as 5 degrees.
So what could be wrong about the world’s nations getting together to prevent such a disaster before it is too late?
In fact, in more recent years scarcely a single point in this “consensus” theory has not been questioned by a growing array of independent experts, including some of the most eminent scientists in the world.
Here are 10 of the claims made by those gathered in Paris, with commentary on just how far their fears are really justified .
English
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/p ... rming.htmlChi c’è in linea
Visitano il forum: Nessuno e 14 ospiti