--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> 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 > > reviewersmore than 2,500 for the entire AR4who 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?
You're not playing with a full deck if you so casually dismiss those two reports which you have clearly not reviewed. And your reliance on the satellite data from only Lucia Liljegren is not by any means conclusive of what is claimed: Comparison of ground based (blue) and satellite based (red: UAH; green: RSS) records of temperature variations since 1979. Trends plotted since January 1982: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png Instrumental Temperature Record: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png "Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). To compare to the increase from the surface record (of approximately +0.07 °C/decade over the past century and +0.17 °C/decade since 1979) it is more appropriate to derive trends for the lower troposphere in which the stratospheric cooling is removed. Doing this, through November 2008: * RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.157 °C/decade.[3] * UAH analysis finds +0.128°C/decade.[4] An alternative adjustment introduced by Fu et al. (2004)[5] finds trends (1979-2001) of +0.19 °C/decade when applied to the RSS data set.[6] A less regularly updated analysis is that of Vinnikov and Grody with +0.20°C per decade (19782004).[7], although it must be noted that RSS also has a higher trend when taken only to 2004 (+0.186 °C/decade) In 1996, Hurrell and Trenberth published in the Journal of Climate an analysis showing a warming trend of +0.18 °C/decade from 1979-1995.[8] Using the T2 channel (which include significant contributions from the stratosphere, which has cooled), Mears et al of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) find (through March 2008) a trend of +0.110 °C/decade.[3] Spencer and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), find a smaller trend of +0.050 °C/decade.[9] ... The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states: ----"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers states: ----"New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR." ... In the late 1990s the disagreement between the surface temperature record and the satellite records was a subject of research and debate. The lack of warming then seen in the records was noted.[19] A report by the National Research Council that reviewed upper air temperature trends stated: ----"Data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to mid-tropospherethe atmospheric layer extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth's surface. Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming."[20] However, the same panel then concluded that ----"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."[21][22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
