--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "guyfawkes91" <guyfawkes91@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ok so if global warming isn't real then why isn't the world > > warming up > > > > > with all the extra insulation added by CO2 and CH4? > > > > > > > > > > If you put on an extra layer of clothing you expect to keep > heat in. > > > > > If you put on an extra layer of insulation for the whole world you > > > > > expect the world to warm up. If it's not warming up then why > > have the > > > > > elementary laws of thermodynamics been suspended? > > > > > > > > > > If you think that insulation doesn't keep you warm when you go > > outside > > > > > then you should be ok about taking a walk without clothes on > in mid > > > > > winter. If you do wrap up warm when you go outside in the winter > > then > > > > > you must be acknowledging that insulation keeps the heat it. > But if > > > > > insulation keeps the heat in then any extra C02 or CH4 in the > > > > > atmosphere must be keeping the heat in for the whole world. If > > not why > > > > > not? > > > > > > > > In short (IMO) : Hubris - the sin of the modern world. > > > > > > > > We think we understand the planet's climate system; That we have > ever > > > > such powerful computers capable of simulating that system; That we > > > > have a sound, rock-solid theory (that you allude to) about the > > > > greenhouse effect. > > > > > > > > But maybe we don't. (Just as no one seems to be able to understand, > > > > control and predict the modern financial system). > > > > > > > > There is no "settled science" in this. It's all tentative, > > > > speculative, and highly unreliable. There's nothing wrong with > that - > > > > until it gets hijacked into politicized science that is obliged to > > > > paper over the uncertainties with hysterical shrieks of "consensus" > > > > and the sinister use of the term "denier" to try to close down > debate. > > > > > > > > It is true that the greenhouse theory looks sound (although it very > > > > much depends on a supporting armoury of supposed "positive > feedbacks" > > > > to make it work). > > > > > > > > It seems true that CO2 emissions have been rising. > > > > > > > > But is also seems true that Gaia is not playing ball: > > > > > > > > > > Planetary global> temperatures are flat-lining. > > > > > > > > > According to the massive body of overwhelming empirical evidence from > > > the IPCC, that statement is false. > > > > OK reflex, simple question for you: > > > > "What evidence of temperature change in the years 2000 - 2008 did the > > last IPCC report have before it?" > > > FIRST: > > From the IPCC: > > The IPCC's technical reports derive their credibility principally from > an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as > mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that > associated with scientific journals. > > This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their > disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the > inclusion of independent "review editors" who certify that all > comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the > authors. For example, see [2]. > > ...Experts from more than 130 countries are contributing to this > assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead > authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, > and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents. > > To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively > begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including > authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of > disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather > than waiting until the document is sent out for review... > > The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert > reviewers—more than 2,500 for the entire AR4—who include scientists, > industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of > perspectives. > > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-background\ > er.html > > http://snipurl.com/7r69y > > > NOW here's the -*fully searchable*- 2007 IPCC report where it covers > the massive basis for the conclusions it makes. You'll note that the > conclusion that climate change/global warming and man's role in > bringing it about is factual based on a huge pool of multiple > peer-reviewed scientific studies: > > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf > > > Here's their most recent [also -*fully searchable*-] 214 page 2008 > report titled Climate Change and Water: > > http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf >
I think you are confusing the date of the reports and the date of the evidence before them. There is obviously a lag of several years. Data for the period from 2000 - 2008 was not available for the 4th IPCC assessment (completed early 2007). Not many people who follow the debate deny the the lack of warming in the years of this century. You seem to be doing that though? Here is some very up to date planetary temperature data as seen by satellite: http://tinyurl.com/8uelmy Is that the planet you live on?
