APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt


here's a sample email


From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>


Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.
 
From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) **** 592090


LOLZ

CA is climate audit
 
tom prendergast said:
Although I tend towards your sceptical analysis, I must point out that the amount of man-made CO2 produced by the US is around 5.8 million tonnes and not 2 million tonnes as you stated. I am also not convinced that removal of rain forests at the present rate is balanced by the planting of more crops. For instance, in Brazil much of the forest is cleared for human habitation, mining and industry and not for agriculture.
Click to expand...
So I should have said several million tons instead of a couple million tons. The point is no one in this discussion is denying the fact that human activity is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact is that human activity world wide contributes about 5% of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. That is not an insignificant amount when simply talking about the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now this would also be significant with respect to rising mean global temperatures, except for one monor detail. COr forcing of global temperatures has not been established, and any actual studies in that area point the opposite direction. The studies on CO2 forcing (studies deliberately ignored by AGW proponents) show that there is NO DIFFERENCE in heat retention between CO2 concentrations of 200 ppmv (pre industrial levels) and 300 ppmv. (current levels) The same has been found for the current levels of CH4 and for man made CFCs. The concentrations found in the atmosphere - including man made sources - simply do not have any measurable differentiation in green house effect.

In the studies, CO2 concentrations were increased to over 3000 ppmv before any increase in heat retention (green house effect) was even measurable, and reached over 10000 ppmv before the greenhouse effect from CO2 was significant enough to account for observed phenomenon on this planet. Similar results were found for CH4, and for CFCs, even though CFCs are strictly man made.

The bottom line is while human activity has, indeed, been contributing to increases in the so-called green house gasses, those gasses are not found in high enough concentrations to create any greenhouse effect. The correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures derived from ice core studies is exactly that: a correlation. It is NOT a cause/effect relationship that can point to human activity as a factor in rising mean global temperatures.
 
tom prendergast said:
I am also not convinced that removal of rain forests at the present rate is balanced by the planting of more crops. For instance, in Brazil much of the forest is cleared for human habitation, mining and industry and not for agriculture.
Click to expand...
I do not know where you got the information which yields "much of the forest is cleared for human habitation" unless the word "much" is referring to the number of acres cleared for habitation, and not in reference to the percentage that is used for humans habitation as opposed to being used for human crops.

The fact is less than 10% of cleared tropical forests have been for human habitation. In Brazil the vast majority of clearing has been for crops, especially in the last decade or so with Brazil promoting and subsidizing the growth of high-sugar biomass for ethanol production.

What many people do not understand is that a heavy growth tropical forest only a small amount of the total biomass is actually involved with photosynthesis. Your average tree less than 5% (specifically the leaves) of its total mass is absorbing CO2 and releasing O2. Yet the canopy of a tropical forest is so dense that plants beneath that canopy have a hard time competing for sunlight.

Conversely, most of the types of plants humans use in agriculture are of the type that almost the entire plant is directly involved in photosynthesis. In Brazil, they grow a whole lot of sugar cane. The sugar cane plant has almost 30% of its biomass in photosynthesis. It's why sugar cane grows so fast. Ditto corn, wheat and other grains, etc. The end result is an increase in the amount of photosynthesis per acre. The increase in per-acre photosynthesis in human agricultural plants more than compensates for the percentage of land that is deforested for something other than agricultural purposes.

Also, another oft ignored fact is ALL the tropical forests across the entire planet only account for about 3% of the total photosynthetic carbon cycle. The vast majority takes place in phytoplankton and water borne algae in the ocean and other waters covering 3/4 of the Earth's surface. Between the fact that deforestation affects only a (relatively) small percentage of 3% of the carbon cycle, and the fact that most deforested areas are replaced with agriculture which also contributes to the carbon cycle, we end up with the conclusion that deforestation, as a factor in AGW theory, is pure unadulterated alarmist bullshit.

Of course, deforestation as a contributor to other problems, such as diminished habitat for endangered species, is a whole different topic. I do not, in any way, support the continued rape of the world's tropical forests. I just detest seeing issue such as this used for ridiculous and/or nefarious purposes.
 
a596hd.png
 
Good Luck said:
Isn't it amazing how persistently ignorance clings to the modern liberal mind?

No one is denying that human activity releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We release a couple million metric tons of CO2 annually in the U.S. alone through the use of fossil fuels.

Of course the whole deforestation thing has been dealt with. Humans growing modified crop plants, which yields more photosynthetic activity per acre than undefiled rain forests, more than compensates for the trees cut down. It's a wash as far as the carbon cycle is concerned. (Though there are several other problems caused by deforestation - but that's a topic for a different thread.)

But the fact that deforestation does not decrease activity in the carbon cycle does not diminish the fact that humans put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through other activities.

The problem with AGW theory is it DOES NOT MATTER. We could quadruple the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere and there still would not be enough increase to cause the atmosphere to hold in more heat. The concentrations are TOO LOW to have a differentiated greenhouse effect from the preindustrial levels of CO2. I have linked the scientific study that PROVES CO2 forcing cannot possibly be a factor in rising global temperatures. Therefore, being concerned over human sources of CO2 is barking up the wrong tree. Humans have contributed to the observed increase in CO2 levels. But the scientific evidence shows that human sources of CO2, CH4, and CFCs have nothing to do with increased temperatures.
Click to expand...

The sheer absurdity of the claim that the deforestation of the rain forests and such are compensated for by crops and replacement planting speaks to either complete ignorance on the topic or a willful stubborness that is insipid. Here are some facts that basically pulls the rug from under your premise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8181063.stm

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/rep...forestation-in-congo-basin-rainforest_1314691

http://harenvironment.gov.in/html/notifications/ACID RAIN.pdf

http://www.treepower.org/news/nytacidrain.html
 
Taichiliberal said:
The sheer absurdity of the claim that the deforestation of the rain forests and such are compensated for by crops and replacement planting speaks to either complete ignorance on the topic or a willful stubborness that is insipid. Here are some facts that basically pulls the rug from under your premise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8181063.stm

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/rep...forestation-in-congo-basin-rainforest_1314691

http://harenvironment.gov.in/html/notifications/ACID RAIN.pdf

http://www.treepower.org/news/nytacidrain.html
Click to expand...

LOL.

a bunch of unrelated links, hoping people won't read them.

Nice try.

These links prove nothing, people.
 
Just about every contributor on this thread is now on Monsanto's Christmas card list. They love discussions like this.
 
Good Luck said:
I do not know where you got the information which yields "much of the forest is cleared for human habitation" unless the word "much" is referring to the number of acres cleared for habitation, and not in reference to the percentage that is used for humans habitation as opposed to being used for human crops.

The fact is less than 10% of cleared tropical forests have been for human habitation. In Brazil the vast majority of clearing has been for crops, especially in the last decade or so with Brazil promoting and subsidizing the growth of high-sugar biomass for ethanol production.

What many people do not understand is that a heavy growth tropical forest only a small amount of the total biomass is actually involved with photosynthesis. Your average tree less than 5% (specifically the leaves) of its total mass is absorbing CO2 and releasing O2. Yet the canopy of a tropical forest is so dense that plants beneath that canopy have a hard time competing for sunlight.

Conversely, most of the types of plants humans use in agriculture are of the type that almost the entire plant is directly involved in photosynthesis. In Brazil, they grow a whole lot of sugar cane. The sugar cane plant has almost 30% of its biomass in photosynthesis. It's why sugar cane grows so fast. Ditto corn, wheat and other grains, etc. The end result is an increase in the amount of photosynthesis per acre. The increase in per-acre photosynthesis in human agricultural plants more than compensates for the percentage of land that is deforested for something other than agricultural purposes.

Also, another oft ignored fact is ALL the tropical forests across the entire planet only account for about 3% of the total photosynthetic carbon cycle. The vast majority takes place in phytoplankton and water borne algae in the ocean and other waters covering 3/4 of the Earth's surface. Between the fact that deforestation affects only a (relatively) small percentage of 3% of the carbon cycle, and the fact that most deforested areas are replaced with agriculture which also contributes to the carbon cycle, we end up with the conclusion that deforestation, as a factor in AGW theory, is pure unadulterated alarmist bullshit.

Of course, deforestation as a contributor to other problems, such as diminished habitat for endangered species, is a whole different topic. I do not, in any way, support the continued rape of the world's tropical forests. I just detest seeing issue such as this used for ridiculous and/or nefarious purposes.
Click to expand...

I agree that the rainforest's are the Lungs of the World argument has been demolished but I should point out that the soil in rain forests is extremely thin, hence it is not very long before soil is washed away by the heavy rainfall resulting in even more forest clearance. Eventually left unchecked you end up with a dustbowl as outlined below.

"Tropical rainforests are being deforested at an alarming rate. Each year hundreds of thousands of hectares of tropical rainforests are being opened for logging and then for clearance for plantations for planting sugar cane, for bio-fuels, for growing oil palm plantations and for raising cattle. All of these practices provide short term gains and in their wake some 2 or 3 years later leave a dust bowl where a rainforest once stood. Tropical rainforests are complex ecosystems and nutrients from fallen leaves and debris are quickly recycled in the hot, humid environment and reabsorbed by the trees and vegetation. This rapid recycling of nutrients into the trees means that the soil is nutrient poor, and after the trees are removed the soil quickly becomes depleted of nutrients and is unable to support plantations or cattle and the land is soon barren and abandoned. The barren land is exposed to the elements and wind and rain soon wash away the top soil until a dust bowl remains. The top soil is washed away to lower ground and silts up rivers leading to localized flooding of villages and towns." (source)

I have a friend, who is a lecturer at Queen's University Belfast, that can give you chapter and verse on this subject as he is a renowned expert on soil erosion.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The sheer absurdity of the claim that the deforestation of the rain forests and such are compensated for by crops and replacement planting speaks to either complete ignorance on the topic or a willful stubborness that is insipid. Here are some facts that basically pulls the rug from under your premise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8181063.stm

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...forest_1314691

http://harenvironment.gov.in/html/no...CID RAIN.pdf

http://www.treepower.org/news/nytacidrain.html
Click to expand...

AssHatZombie said:
LOL.

a bunch of unrelated links, hoping people won't read them.

Nice try.

These links prove nothing, people.
Click to expand...

Notice that this jackass NEVER discusses content....he just brays forth negativity WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF to back up his accusations. Typical dishonest tactic by an intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Once again chuckles, you live up to your screen name.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Notice that this jackass NEVER discusses content....he just brays forth negativity WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF to back up his accusations. Typical dishonest tactic by an intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Once again chuckles, you live up to your screen name.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the peer reviewers colluding to keep sceptical studies out of IPCC reports?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Notice that this jackass NEVER discusses content....he just brays forth negativity WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF to back up his accusations. Typical dishonest tactic by an intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Once again chuckles, you live up to your screen name.
Click to expand...

LOL. no.

That's just more of your pretending your links link to science.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Notice that this jackass NEVER discusses content....he just brays forth negativity WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF to back up his accusations. Typical dishonest tactic by an intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Once again chuckles, you live up to your screen name.
Click to expand...

tinfoil said:
What do you think about the peer reviewers colluding to keep sceptical studies out of IPCC reports?
Click to expand...

Been there, done that, as the chronological posts shows.....repeating yourself ad nauseum won't make the information and it's logical conclusions I posted magically go away.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Notice that this jackass NEVER discusses content....he just brays forth negativity WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF to back up his accusations. Typical dishonest tactic by an intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Once again chuckles, you live up to your screen name.
Click to expand...

AssHatZombie said:
LOL. no.

That's just more of your pretending your links link to science.
Click to expand...

God you're fucking stupid....you keep repeating EXACTLY the moronic tactic I just described.

Laugh, clown, laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top