Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

Please, find one that explicitly disagrees with me.

Do you understand the IPCCs definition of radiative efficiency and global warming potential?

It is only for very small changes.

 

Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/atg.032
Updated February 2014

Investigator
T.J. Blasing

Gases typically measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb) or parts per trillion (ppt) are presented separately to facilitate comparison of numbers. Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) and atmospheric lifetimes are from the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007, Table 2.14), except for the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is explained in footnote 4. Additional material on greenhouse gases can be found in CDIAC's Reference Tools. To find out how CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, and halons are named, see Name that compound: The numbers game for CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, and Halons. Concentrations given apply to the lower 75-80 percent of the atmosphere, known as the troposphere.

Sources of the current concentrations are given in the footnotes. The concentrations given are mostly derived from data available via the CDIAC Web pages; many corresponding links are given in the footnotes below. These data are contributed to CDIAC by various investigators, and represent considerable effort on their part. We ask as a basic professional courtesy that you acknowledge the primary sources when you refer to data from any of these sites. Guidelines for proper acknowledgment are found at each link, except for the ALE/GAGE/AGAGE database where acknowledgment guidelines are given in the "readme" files; links to those "readme" files are given in footnote 9, below. Concentrations of ozone and water vapor are spatially and temporally variable due to their short atmospheric lifetimes. A vertically and horizontally averaged water vapor concentration is about 5,000 ppm. Globally averaged water vapor concentration is difficult to measure precisely because it varies from one place to another and from one season to the next. This precludes a precise determination of changes in water vapor since pre-industrial time. However, a warmer atmosphere will likely contain more water vapor than at present. For a more detailed statement on water vapor from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, see http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

GAS Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration1 Recent tropospheric concentration2 GWP3(100-yr time horizon) Atmospheric lifetime4(years) Increased radiative forcing 5 (W/m2)
Concentrations in parts per million (ppm)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 2806 395.47 1 ~ 100-3004 1.88
Concentrations in parts per billion (ppb)
Methane (CH4) 7228 18939/17629 28 124 0.49
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 27010 3269/3249 265 1214 0.17
Tropospheric ozone (O3) 2371 3372 n.a.3 hours-days 0.40
Concentrations in parts per trillion (ppt)
CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane) (CCl3F) zero 2369/2349 4,660 45 0.061
CFC-12 (CCl2F2) zero 5279/5279 10,200 100 0.169
CF-113(CCl2CClF2) zero 749/749 5,820 85 0.022
HCFC-22(CHClF2) zero 2319/2109 1,760 11.9 0.046
HCFC-141b(CH3CCl2F) zero 249/219 782 9.2 0.0036
HCFC-142b(CH3CClF2) zero 239/219 1,980 17.2 0.0042
Halon 1211 (CBrCIF2) zero 4.19/4.09 1,750 16 0.0012
Halon 1301 (CBrCIF3) zero 3.39/3.39 6,290 65 0.0010
HFC-134a(CH2FCF3) zero 759/649 1,300 13.4 0.0108
Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) zero 859/839 1,730 26 0.0143
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) zero 7.799,11/7.399,11 23,500 3200 0.0043
Other Halocarbons zero Varies by substance collectively <0.02

Footnotes
1.Preindustrial (1750) concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O are taken from Chapter 8.3.2 of IPCC (2013). Global-scale trace-gas concentrations from prior to 1750 are assumed to be practically uninfluenced by human activities such as increasingly specialized agriculture, land clearing, and combustion of fossil fuels. However, effects of agriculture are possibly responsible for the increase in methane concentration around 1800 and perhaps some of the much smaller increases that occurred earlier. Preindustrial concentrations of industrially manufactured compounds are given as zero. The short atmospheric lifetime of ozone (hours-days) together with the spatial variability of its sources precludes a globally or vertically homogeneous distribution, so that a fractional unit such as parts per billion would not apply over a range of altitudes or geographical locations. Therefore a different unit is used to integrate the varying concentrations of ozone. The total mass of ozone in the troposphere is estimated in units of teragrams (Tg). A Tg is 1012 grams, or a million metric tons. Preindustrial and recent O3 amounts are taken from Chapter 8.2.3.1 of IPCC (2013).
2.Because atmospheric concentrations of most gases tend to vary systematically over the course of a year, figures given represent averages over a specific 12-month period for all gases except ozone (O3), for which a current tropospheric total amount has been more broadly estimated (IPCC, 2013, page 670). The CO2 concentration given is the average for year 2013, taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, website maintained by Dr. Pieter Tans. For other chemical species, the values given are averages for 2012; data are found on the CDIAC AGAGE page or the AGAGE home page.
3.The Global Warming Potential (GWP) provides a simple measure of the radiative effects of emissions of various greenhouse gases, integrated over a specified time horizon, relative to an equal mass of CO2 emissions. The GWP with respect to CO2 is calculated using the formula:


where ai is the instantaneous radiative forcing due to the release of a unit mass of trace gas, i, into the atmosphere, at time TR, Ci is the amount of that unit mass remaining in the atmosphere at time, t, after its release and TH is TR plus the time horizon over which the calculation is performed (100 years in this table). The formula is adapted from page 210 of IPCC (2007). The GWPs given are from Table 8.A.1 of IPCC (2013). The short lifetime of ozone (hours-days) precludes a meaningful calculation of global warming potential on the time horizons (20, 100, and 500 years) listed in IPCC documents.
4.The atmospheric lifetime is used to characterize the decay of an instantaneous pulse input to the atmosphere, and can be likened to the time it takes that pulse input to decay to 0.368 (l/e) of its original value. The analogy would be strictly correct if every gas decayed according to a simple exponential curve, which is seldom the case. For example, CH4 is removed from the atmosphere by a single process, oxidation by the hydroxyl radical (OH), but the effect of an increase in atmospheric concentration of CH4 is to reduce the OH concentration, which, in turn, reduces destruction of additional methane, effectively lengthening its atmospheric lifetime. An opposite kind of feedback may shorten the atmospheric lifetime of N2O (IPCC 2007, Section 2.10.3). For CO2 the specification of an atmospheric lifetime is complicated by temporary removal processes which store carbon in the biosphere before it is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 via respiration or, as a combustion product, in fires. This necessitates complex modeling of the decay curve. Because the modelled decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Most estimates fall in the 100-300-year range. The above-described processes are all accounted for in the derivation of the atmospheric lifetimes given in the above table, taken from Table 8.A.1 in IPCC (2013).
5.Changes in radiative forcing since 1750 represent changes in the rate per square meter, at which energy is supplied to the atmosphere below the stratosphere. Note from Figure TS.6 (top) in the Technical Summary of IPCC (2013) that aerosols frequently have the effect of decreasing this radiative forcing. Energy is measured in Joules; the rate at which it is made available is in Joules/second, or Watts; hence, radiative forcing is measured in Watts per square meter (W/m2). The value for increased radiative forcing of CO2 is based on the 2013 concentration and the 1750 concentration given in the above table. Values for CH4 and N2O are based on AGAGE global average concentrations for 2012 and the 1750 values given. Radiative forcing for tropospheric ozone is taken from the 5th column of Table 8.6 of IPCC (2013). The "current" value refers to a global average. Note, in the row immediately below the number for tropospheric forcing, the stratospheric forcing is given as negative 0.05 W/m2. Note also the uncertainty ranges given in the tables. For CH4, N2O, and gases expressed in concentrations of parts per trillion, radiative forcings apply to average global concentrations given by AGAGE for 2012, and are based on the radiative efficiencies given in Table 8.A.1 of IPCC 2013. For the gases expressed in parts per trillion, it is assumed that radiative forcing prior to 1750 was zero because their only source is manufacture after that time. Calculations for these gases assume that the radiative efficiencies have not changed with time, for these small concentrations (cf. Mitchell 1989). The upper bound for the collective value of radiative forcing increases given for the "other halogenated species" was approximated by subtracting the sum for those listed from the total for all halogens given in Table 8.2 of IPCC (2013), and rounding the result upward. Radiative forcing estimates of one investigator may differ slightly from those another due to differences in assumed preindustrial values, radiative efficiencies, or values used as recent atmospheric concentrations. For comparison, see the radiative forcings given by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at NOAAs Annual Greenhouse Gas Index site, which also gives the equations used in the calculations of radiative forcing.
6.Blasing (1985) gave the range of best estimates of the CO2 mole fraction around year 1800 as between 275 and 285 parts per million. This was drawn from an extensive study of previous work by Gammon et al. (1985), which gave that range from within a broader possible range of 260-285 ppm. IPCC (2013, Technical Summary, page 50) gives a range of 273-283 ppm for year 1750; Chapter 8 of IPCC (2013) indicates a narrower range of 276-280. The Law Dome Ice core record available on the CDIAC web site, indicates a value of 277 for year 1750; IPCC (2013) gives 278 ppm. These values are generally consistent with those from Neftel et al. From all this we conclude that estimates of preindustrial concentrations have been robust as new information has been obtained over the last 30 years or more. The slight differences from one persons estimate to the next lead to slight differences in estimated increases in radiative forcing since "preindustrial times" which are now taken as the radiative forcings in year 1750. Evidence of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations comes from several sources, including well-dated carbon-isotope signatures, in annual tree rings (Stuiver et al. 1984). Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 can also be obtained by first calculating the ratio of the recent atmospheric CO2 increases to recent fossil-fuel use, and using past records of fossil-fuel use to extrapolate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations on an annual basis. Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 concentrations obtained in this way are higher than those obtained by more direct measurements; this is believed to be because the effects of widespread land clearing are not accounted for. Ice-core data provide records of earlier concentrations. For over 400,000 years of ice-core record from Vostok, see J. M. Barnola et al. For ice-core records extending 800,000 years back in time, see CDIACs Gateway Page to CO2 data.
7.Recent CO2 concentration (395.4 ppm) is the 2013 average taken from globally averaged marine surface data given by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory website. Please read the material on that web page and reference Dr. Pieter Tans when citing this average. The oft-cited Mauna Loa average for 2013 is 396.5 ppm, which is a good approximation although typically about 1 ppm higher than the spatial average given above. Instrument records back to late 1959 are available.
8.Pre-industrial concentrations of CH4 are evident in the 2000-year records from Law Dome, Antarctica and longer ice-core records found on CDIAC's collection of data access links to atmospheric trace gases. A spline function fit to those data gives 697 ppm for year 1750, but this may be lower than the global average if agricultural sources in the Northern Hemisphere were already contributing nontrivially. For graphs of two-thousand-year records of CH4, CO2 and N2O concentrations are found here.

LINK.....http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

AboveAlpha

 

In any case, advancing fusion could enable the scale economies necessary to achieve the effect of ameliorating the effects of climate change.

 

And other than a couple optimistic news reports there is no evidence of a working fusion system...it's a civilization/world changer if it arrives but until then we're destroying our home if we continue as we are...as it is we've done significant damage to our home...and more damage is coming even if we could cut emissions to zero today, it'll take many centuries to reverse...

 

Yet the only cause they chose to look at was co2 when climate change in the earths history wasn't just a matter of co2 levels. They do not look at other factors, for if they did, they might have to change their conclusions. And too much money involved to change conclusions, for it takes away a cash cow, it wastes money elites have invested in combatting climate change, etc.

A denier of climate change hardly exists. But what does exist are those scientists who do not give co2 based change as the primary cause. And there are plenty of these men, who are not on payrolls, that pay over 2 billion a year to the climate change fanatics.

The only question I have is, HOW many of these hysterical climate change proponents will man up and say they were stupidly WRONG when a few decades from now we know this co2 deal was a hoax?? I bet none of them will be able to admit they were taken in, and basically believe anything they hear when it agrees with their world views.

The climate is changing, but it has always changed, duh. We are in an interglacial period that cycles, and the next ice age is what we need to worry about. When the globe has warmed in the past and man was here, we exploded in population, advanced civilization and were healthier because there was more food to go around.

Some scientists like Dyson has said that if you are worried about co2, it could be managed with land management, by planting particular kinds of plants. But, there is no great wealth to be made in doing that, and so we won't even consider it.

There is not one scientist on earth who understands climate change well enough to make any claims as they have made. Out of a very limited knowledge to ignorance they make claims. And that should be taken into account. It's like trying to understand and comprehend matter when you have not discovered quantum mechanics yet. No different.

 

It is true that Coleman's degree is in journalism, but he has worked as a meteorologist and in other weather-related capacity his entire professional life. I would imagine he has done quite a bit more independent study and has more exposure in the field than anybody criticizing his point of view who is posting on this thread.

 

Thats absolutely false, the scientific process has eliminated all other potential causes, milankovitch cycle(ice ages)? No...the sun? No...volcanoes? No...meteor strike? No...comet impact? No...cosmic rays? No....there has been no other identifiable cause every option has been examined and eliminated one by one and only one remains standing, the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 emissions...

As clearly demonstrated by your post you know very little or nothing of the research that has been done, when are you going to man up and admit you know nothing...

 

A journalist/tv weather guy needs to know nothing more than what is scripted on the teleprompter. ..

 

Complete fail.

 

And yet, no experiment that shows 120PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere does anything to temperature or climate. FAIL

 

Perhaps so. But do you have any evidence that John Coleman has not done his homework? That he is not more knowledgeable on this topic than you or me or anybody else posting on this thread?

 

Climate never changes unless it is by man-made causes, dude do you know how idiotic your argument sounds.

 

Do you have any evidence that Al Gore has not not done his homework? That he is not more knowledgeable on this topic than you or me or anybody else posting on this thread?...when was the last time someone on this forum referenced Al Gore as an expert?...ive been on this forum a long time no one to my recollection has ever claimed Al Gore as an expert, it just doesnt happen.... but denierworld has no hesitation citing journalists and bloggers and non scientists as experts...

 

Al Gore is your leader on this.

 

I have to give it to Al. He has most definitely done his homework, and is very good at relaying the viewpoint held by consensus.

That still doesn't make it correct.

 

You know.....my post is EXACTLY what you asked for and DETAILS OUT IN COMPLEXITY why you have absolutely no clue about what you are trying to talk about.

Take a few remedial course in Chemistry and Physics and then TRY AGAIN....to read what I posted for you as it is OBVIOUS you didn't read the answer to your question.

AboveAlpha

 

Current CO2 levels are 395.47 PPM......Pre-year 1750 they were only 280.6 PPM.

Current CH4 levels are 1893.9 PPB......Pre-year 1750 they were only 722.8 PPB.

Both are higher than they have EVER been in 100,000 years and this is due to Human Activity.

AboveAlpha

 

Your post agrees with my point of view. Look at the GWP formula.

No place in that post does it say CH4 holds more heat in the atmosphere than CO2. GWP is only used a bad metric, which I say has no meaning except to scare people.

There is no explicit disagreement with what I described about CO2 and CH4.

Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

 

Oh for Cries Sake!!!

TRY READING WHAT I POSTED!!!!

It explains specifics to refelectability...radiant account and ability of the amount of TIME either CO2 or CH4 and other Gases can exist in our Atmosphere and for how long before they degrade.

YOU DIDN'T READ IT!!!!

Because if you did you would understand!

AboveAlpha

 

And according to the consensus material, more than a doubling of CH4 increased forcing by less than 0.5 W/m^2 whereas about a 40% increase in CO2 increased forcing by more than 1.6 W/m^2.

Remember, these are on a log curve. Not linear.

This places the sensitivity of CH4, probably between 0.4 to 0.5 W/m^2, where is is claimed the sensitivity of CO2 is arounf 3.7 W/m^2. This clearly puts CO2 in as the stronger greenhouse gas.

 

Yes, I understand that. You fail to comprehend the placement on the log curve. That is for the addition or equal mass, at current levels. It does not say the gas holds more heat.

Consider this, even in a linear fashion. There is more than 600 times the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere than there is CH4. (395000/1800 ppb x 44/12 = 603.47.) If I take two vats of water, one with a surface area of 1 square foot, and the other with a surface area of 600 square feet, and have the surface and bottom of the water at equal heights to start, and the same temperature.

Would you agree the the larger one has 600 times more heat?

What happens if I add 1 cubic foot of the same temperature of water to each?

The vat representing CH4 increases by 1 ft, and the one representing CO2 rises by around 3/64 of an inch,

Now I added the same heat to each, but it appears of you didn't see the size of these, only compared with a depth gauge that CH4 raised more.

This is one of the trucks the IPCC, and the climate scientists use to deceive with. It appears the vat representing CH4 raised so much more.

 

Would you PLEASE read what I posted?

It explains what you are hung up upon.

AboveAlpha

 

nothing to worry our end is near
congrats

 

You are looking at this wrong.

You are trying to calculate total mass of CO2 and it's ability due to it's greater amount of mass to hold in heat in our Atmosphere.

Then you are pointing out since there is more mass of CO2 that the total amount of CH4 being much less cannot hold in the same amount of heat in our atmosphere due to it's smaller amount of total mass.

But what you fail to understand is that when CH4 exists i conjunction with other atmospheric gases compared to a single CO2 Molecule the CH4 Molecule combined with other atmospheric gases can hold in heat and reflect it back to earth u to 72 times greater than CO2.

Add to this CH4 longer existence in atmosphere as CO2 degrades faster and as well there is huge amounts of CH4 still existing within Arctic Permafrost and at the bottom of all Arctic Lakes and Oceans in amounts far greater than CO2....this means we have a big problem.

AboveAlpha

 

Climate and change are synonymous.. the climate always has been changing... always... the climate in Precambrian was very different that in Triassic or Jurassic...maybe someone ecologist thinks the climate changed in Jurassic or Triassic by the pollution of Chinese industry ...
The human intervention in the climate change is 0. We are in the in the Quaternary, living in an interglacial period ... in a few thousand years will be the fifth ice age... it's inevitable ... no industry can prevent it. The Ice Age is comming!