I did read that Reagan said trees cause more pollution than automobiles. I read it all by myself. But I'll leave it up to you to unread it.
The sciences are wrong when it comes to climatology. They don't have a proper understanding of important variables, and so many things are based on correlation to causation, when they even admit they have a poor understanding of many variables. One thing that gets me is the way they manipulate data. There are too many independent scientists making similar claims of data manipulations. Here's a recent one: http://www.thegwpf.org/australian-met-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/ Call me a hard-head if you want, but most of the changes we see are from the sun. An average of TSI increase from 1750 to around 2000 is about 0.18% This seems like an insignificant number, but the shorter wavelengths increase more than the longer wavelengths, and water very effectively absorbs a very large percentage of the shortwave. They are absorbed deep enough it takes decades to see the full effect, so the oceans act like a capacitor to incoming heat. Consider ideas like this: Energy balances are based on percentage changes. Sure, not all are linear, but still close enough that if we assume the values of this particular energy budget, a 0.18% increase in TSI amounts to an approximate 0.93 W/m^2 energy in the atmosphere, an approximate increase of 0.58 W/m^2 of indirect solar forcing. Please note, the IPCC AR4 is when I put this together, and they claimed a 0.12 W/m^2 direct forcing. They never speak of "indirect" forcing from the sun. Combined, this is 0.7 W/m^2 of their claimed 1.6 W/m^2 warming, which I also find suspicions. Lets not forget soot on ice, which many scientists have elevated to so much more forcing than the IPCC will admit, in the new AR5. When these people start doing science that makes sense instead of science for propaganda, I can start believing them. Something I repeat from time to time about model predictions is the, The observations must be wrong since 95% of the models disagree. Their whole quantification of forcing is based on modelings.
Of course he didn't. However, I'll bet if you looked, you will find that CH4 from rotting trees and soot and other pollutants from forests burning could possibly have caused more pollution in 1980 or so, than cars.
About your credibility. An increase from 1750 to 2000 isn't even close to .18%, try like 14%. If you aren't even capable of basic math maybe you should be somewhat more circumspect about criticizing actual scientists.
Another example of manipulation that is being questioned in Australia. This location has never had any changes to the station or changes in the station itself so could be considered one of the more pristine locations but the raw data is 'homogenized' with other stations that have had changes. The change from the raw data to the homogenized trend is dramatic.
Saying that something is wrong implies that you know what the right answer is, so please tell us what the right science of climatology is? Deniers have been criticizing data from the Australian BOM for years. How's that working for them so far? Except the average TSI peaked around 1950 and has been declining since. On the other hand, global surface temperature (not to mention upper ocean temperature) has continued to climb during that same period. If most of the 0.8 °C warming over the last century is caused by the sun, when are we going to see some cooling? Your calculations might be correct if all other climate variables had remained constant since 1750, but we both know that is not the case. By definition, 100% of the models are wrong in one way or another. But the best models are the ones that account for human CO2 emissions.
A person doesn't have to have the right answer on something to see that other answers are wrong. Do you know for a fact they are wrong? I see it as another indication that there are other real scientists that do not agree with the "climate is settled" "consensus" that is claimed. I get tired of explaining this. Please don't forget this for the future. Solar changes take decades to set in as much of the heat changes are in the deeper surface waters. Pollution mitigated the changes we should have seen just past the 50's. When the pollution started clearing in the late 70's to present, we saw the final results from the solar changes to the 50's. There are so many factors that work together. Please stop trying to pin down a single on without considering others. LOL... Did you consider that when you pointed out the TSI peak in 1950? Have I ever said CO2 has no effect? My claim when it comes to the AGW idea is that CO2 is far over stated in effect. I believe it has between 1/4 to 1/3rd of the effects the "alarmist" scientists claim. However, AGW is real. You will never see me claim AGW is a hoax. Yet the sciences are still so little understood that are needed for proper climate modeling. The climatologists continue to revise their numbers, temperature stations and "corrections" keep changing. The way the 97% is used is laughable. I'm sorry, the whole climatology stuff is simply laughable.
Can you provide an example to illustrate this? I don't need to know if they're wrong. It's their claim and they need to back it up. Except climatologist have been studying pollution's effect on climate for decades, and while there is still much to be learned, nothing suggests they have the level of impact needed to support your hypothesis. Science doesn't wait until it understands everything about a topic because we know we will never know all there is to know. Science makes the best of what we know at the time, and what we know now says that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming. If you're going to argue that the effects of CO2 are far overstated, then produce a climate model with the values you think are right and let's see how it does.
And the best we know with any certainty is very limited. Now considering that greenhouse gas forcing is based on historical temperature trends correlated with atmospheric concentrations, it's totally laughable that scientists think they have a high LOSU for CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.
Forty years ago, you would have been correct. But considering that the radiative forcing for CO2, CH4 and N2O can be inferred from satellite measurements, shouldn't we expect a high LOSU today?
Not true. Please explain, how thorough the complexity of the changing gas percentage mixes, pressures, and temperatures which cause a changing opacity to spectra at the different elevations. Just how can any one gas forcing be determined with any certainty? I have dealt with spectra for determining oxide and metal thicknesses in mutli layer silicon wafers. It's one of the things I learned as an Engineering Technician in Chemical Mechanical Planarization. It can only be determined by having the other variables known, and this is in a controlled environment. This is no easy task, and impossible with the number of variables involved in the atmosphere. It's still guesswork, and a scientist will err to his beliefs. Take what they deem is "most probable."
We know what the absorption spectrum is for CO2, CH4 and N2O from laboratory experiments. Measuring the difference in longwave radiation at the surface and top of atmosphere, we know what the total absorption of these gases is. Minimum and maximum contributions for each individual gas can be determined by calculating the absorption at a given gases spectrum.
You have to treat it like an infinate number of layers. You can model it with a few layers, but single layers don't work. Imaging looking at fog, and trying to determine what's on the other side of it. You can see how bright your headlights appear from the reflection, but you still cannot determine precisely what's happening at the other side of the fog. Now consider the variable opacity of the atmosphere to tyhe spectra we are interested in for CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. Since you cannot treat it as a single layer, you cannot determine the opposite side.
If you're trying to model the distribution of heat within the atmosphere, then yes, you do have to treat it as individual layers (the more the better). But if you're only interested in the total net effect, climate forcing, then you can treat it as a black box with heat entering at the bottom and heat leaving at the top.
The historic range of temperature of the earth has always stayed between 10C and 25C with the historically longest temperature around 25C dipping into ice ages occasionally. At somewhere around 14C we are deep within an ice age currently around 2.5 million years old and it will be natural to warm to the natural high range at some time, with or without man present.
Nothing like a non linear yearly scale to make things look skewed. Like your graph shows, we have been in an ice age about 2.5 million years. Since nothing can be exact previous to actual temperature readings, anything before are proxies. Here is a general representation for the last 600 million years. There is a definite upper and lower bound.
climate warmers are only using records from 1979 to present..35 years only...1979 was a year when the artic had heavy ice...above normal..so it makes it look like there is less ice now and they say it is global warming caused...oops i meant global cooling....oops carbon emissions...are what ever the new phrase is...if they used the records that go back to 1910 they would see that nothing is changing...thats why they dont use it
Logarithmic scales are very useful when you have more data for the short term than for the long term. Forcing data onto a liner scale results in lost information. Plus, it is easy to misrepresent information when your source doesn't exist. Christopher R. Scotese didn't publish any papers in 2002, much less a temperature reconstruction for the last 600 million years. Maybe they should have read Royer et al, 2004.
Svante Arrhenius and Guy Calendar must have been psychic to figure out global warming decades before there was any records.
Well, here you go, the lead author of IPCC AR4 says the decision for countries to decarbonize or not decarbonize is a political decision and AR5 says that climate change is irreversible (translate: man cannot change it). Let the alarmists heads explode.
