Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ancient_geezer
Hardly dangerous or catastrophic in anyone's book and far below the rediculas scenarios proffered by the UN/IPCC climate models.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are 25% above 500,000 year maximums and rising...and this rise is almost certainly due to human population growth and concomittant industrialization. You want to believe that's not something to be concerned about? Something which has very serious consequences to life on earth?

That strikes me as very strange.

26 posted on 07/02/2006 11:50:08 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: liberallarry

Atmospheric CO2 levels are 25% above 500,000 year maximums and rising...and this rise is almost certainly due to human population growth and concomittant industrialization. You want to believe that's not something to be concerned about? Something which has very serious consequences to life on earth?

That strikes me as very strange.

It can strike you strange, however seeing as CO2 is a minor contribution to climate and mankind's share of it even less, it strikes me that the left's focus on such is more than a little bit hype and a whole lot political in its focus.

 

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

  Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics  % of All Greenhouse Gases

% Natural

% Man-made

 Water vapor 95.000% 

 94.999%

0.001% 
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 

 3.502%

0.117% 
 Methane (CH4) 0.360% 

 0.294%

0.066% 
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 

 0.903%

0.047% 
 Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 

 0.025%

0.047% 
 Total 100.00% 

 99.72

0.28% 

 

 

In point of fact, the warming effect of CO2 increases only as the log of concentration.(i.e less effect as total concentration increases.) It's contribution is only 0.2o C in direct radiation effects for each doubling of CO2 concrentration.

So small an increase is barely discernable in the natural background noise in global temperature variations do to natural factors such as variation in solar activity operating on the atmosphere as well.

 

Where is the correlation of measured CO2 concentrations vs atmospheric temperatures, that the global warming modelers and envio-politicians say must exist?

 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]


 

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

 

 

The current measurement data doesn't seem to support the model projections at all, something appears to be overlooked or overstated their thinking:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Rise In Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in figure 1 (1).


  • Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per million by volume, ppm, at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. These measurements agree well with those at other locations (1). Periodic cycle is caused by seasonal variations in CO2 absorption by plants. Approximate global level of atmospheric CO2 in 1900 and 1940 is also displayed (2).
  • The annual cycles in figure 1 are the result of seasonal variations in plant use of carbon dioxide. Solid horizontal lines show the levels that prevailed in 1900 and 1940 (2). The magnitude of this atmospheric increase during the 1980s was about 3 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) per year (3). Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.

    ***

    Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age (between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the Northern Hemisphere record of figure 3, is also evident in this record of U.S. temperatures. These temperatures are now near average for the past 103 years, with 1996 and 1997 having been the 42nd and 60th coolest years.


  • Figure 5: Radiosonde balloon station measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures at 63 stations between latitudes 90 N and 90 S from 1958 to 1996 (15). Temperatures are three-month averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1996 is shown. The slope is minus 0.060 ºC per decade.
  • Especially important in considering the effect of changes in atmospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the troposphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface (14). Figure 5 shows global tropospheric temperatures measured by weather balloons between 1958 and 1996. They are currently near their 40-year mean (15), and have been trending slightly downward since 1979.


  • Figure 6: Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit, MSU, measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures between latitudes 83 N and 83 S from 1979 to 1997 (17,18). Temperatures are monthly averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1997 is shown. The slope of this line is minus 0.047 ºC per decade. This record of measurements began in 1979.

  • Figure 7: Global radiosonde balloon temperature (light line) (15) and global satellite MSU temperature (dark line) (17,18) from figures 5 and 6 plotted with 6-month smoothing. Both sets of data are graphed as deviations from their respective means for 1979 to 1996. The 1979 to 1996 slopes of the trend lines are minus 0.060 ºC per decade for balloon and minus 0.045 for satellite.
  • Since 1979, lower-tropospheric temperature measurements have also been made by means of microwave sounding units (MSUs) on orbiting satellites (16). Figure 6 shows the average global tropospheric satellite measurements (17,18) the most reliable measurements, and the most relevant to the question of climate change.

    Figure 7 shows the satellite data from figure 6 superimposed upon the weather balloon data from figure 5. The agreement of the two sets of data, collected with completely independent methods of measurement, verifies their precision. This agreement has been shown rigorously by extensive analysis (19, 20).

    While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade (21, 22). In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect (illustrated below).

    During the past 10 years, U.S. surface temperatures have trended downward by minus 0.08 ºC per decade (12) while global surface temperatures are reported increased by plus 0.03 ºC per decade (23). The corresponding weather-balloon and satellite tropospheric 10-year trends are minus 0.4 ºC and minus 0.3 ºC per decade, respectively.


  • Figure 8: Tropospheric temperature measurements by satellite MSU for North America between 30º to 70º N and 75º to 125º W (dark line) (17, 18) compared with the surface record for this same region (light line) (24), both plotted with 12-month smoothing and graphed as deviations from their means for 1979 to 1996. The slope of the satellite MSU trend line is minus 0.01 ºC per decade, while that for the surface trend line is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The correlation coefficient for the unsmoothed monthly data in the two sets is 0.92.
  • Disregarding uncertainties in surface measurements and giving equal weight to reported atmospheric and surface data and to 10 and 19 year averages, the mean global trend is minus 0.07 ºC per decade.

    In North America, the atmospheric and surface records partly agree (20 and figure 8). Even there, however, the atmospheric trend is minus 0.01 per decade, while the surface trend is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The satellite record, with uniform and better sampling, ismuch more reliable.

    The computer models on which forecasts of global warming are based predict that tropospheric temperatures will rise at least as much as surface temperatures (14). Because of this, and because these temperatures can be accurately measured without confusion by complicated effects in the surface record, these are the temperatures of greatest interest. The global trend shown in figures 5, 6 and 7 provides a definitive means of testing the validity of the global warming hypothesis.

     

     

    "Climate models are recognized as being rather poorly validated primarily because of (earlier) lack of computer power and a continuing lack of adequate observational data (Gates et al., 1990). Although both issues are steadily being solved, it seems unlikely that very high levels of confidence in climate model projections are achievable within the next decade."
    MECCA Analysis Project, 1997

    "Surface temperatures have increased 1 to 1.5F during the last 130 years. Most of that increase occurred prior to 1940 and prior to the larger increase in CO2. The National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that 75 percent of any increase [in global temperature over the last century] may be due to natural causes such as solar output, cloud effects and the vertical mixing of ocean waters. It is also noted that the earth warmed to a higher degree before the industrial revolution than after. "
    John Paul Pitts, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Oct. 9, 1997

    Surely all the global warming hype has nothing to do with anything political</sarc>

     

     

    "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

    "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

    "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing"
    (Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996

    "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
    (Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

    "The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models"
    (Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)

    "The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve"
    --(Kyoto Delegate, 05 December 1997)


    50 posted on 07/02/2006 3:47:08 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

    To: liberallarry
    Atmospheric CO2 levels are 25% above 500,000 year maximums and rising

    Above the maximum possibly, 25% above is doubtful. Ice cores average the CO2 concentrations for several decades or more into one reading. There's no way to get enough granularity to know that there weren't spikes like the current one within the last half million years. I would be shocked if there weren't some.

    I was just reading Smithsonian Sept 2003 "Mystery of Africa's Killer Lakes" describing how in Aug 21, 1986 an explosion released a billion cubic yards of CO2 at Lake Nyos killing people and all animals wide area. That's 473,709 tons of CO2, whereas manmade CO2 production is about 6 billion tons per year, so not much in comparison. But there were undoubtedly larger ones in the past. The volcano feeding the lake puts out CO2 at a steady low rate but there are many known exceptions. In short, what seems like constant low levels of CO2 may actually be an artifact of the way it is measured.

    58 posted on 07/02/2006 5:48:16 PM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article


    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson